There are a lot in Connecticut, too. I've sometimes wondered how many Dunkin Donuts franchises you'd pass if you drove US 1 from New York City to Boston. I wouldn't be surprised if it's somewhere on the order of 50.

It has been determined for some reason that part of the route in Cambridge and Boston does not meet US highway standards. I doubt MassDOT would care about redesignating it as a US route anyway, since for decades it's always just been Route 3. Especially given the number of shield errors I don't think anyone actually knows or cares the difference.

Nothing beats US 83 Business in San Ygnacio, TX. This is a two-way street: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.044851,-99.443886&spn=0.015499,0.028346&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.044667,-99.443818&panoid=jJ7AUrVZ7azRAFWN0Pu-aw&cbp=12,311.63,,0,13.11Doesn't seem to have any businesses, though there are some historic buildings. It looks to be completely unsigned from US 83.

When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

The reason for US 3 changing over to MA 3 at its current location in Cambridge is due to; once upon a time, US 1 ran through that area pre-1971. Although it is allowed, MassDPW at the time didn't want any part of US 3 situated east of US 1. Why the US 3 designation wasn't extended to Boston when US 1 replaced MA C1 along Storrow Drive is anyone's guess.

The reason for US 3 changing over to MA 3 at its current location in Cambridge is due to; once upon a time, US 1 ran through that area pre-1971. Although it is allowed, MassDPW at the time didn't want any part of US 3 situated east of US 1. Why the US 3 designation wasn't extended to Boston when US 1 replaced MA C1 along Storrow Drive is anyone's guess.

There are a lot in Connecticut, too. I've sometimes wondered how many Dunkin Donuts franchises you'd pass if you drove US 1 from New York City to Boston. I wouldn't be surprised if it's somewhere on the order of 50.

I figure it's somewhere on the order of 50 just from Providence to Boston.

When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

There is one of those on VFW Parkway in West Roxbury, about 1/4 mile south of another DD. When I lived in West Roxbury and used Providence Highway/US 1 to get to work, there were 7 DD along my 8 mile commute.

When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

The reason for US 3 changing over to MA 3 at its current location in Cambridge is due to; once upon a time, US 1 ran through that area pre-1971. Although it is allowed, MassDPW at the time didn't want any part of US 3 situated east of US 1. Why the US 3 designation wasn't extended to Boston when US 1 replaced MA C1 along Storrow Drive is anyone's guess.

Under their current policies, it is highly unlikely that AASHTO would approve the re-designation of MA 3 as part of US 3. IMHO, the more logical approach would be to discontinue US 3 entirely, then re-designate US 3 between Cambridge and Tyngsborough as part of MA 3, and re-designate US 3 from Nashua north as NH 3. This is also consistent with curretn AASHTO policy, which encourages adjacent states to create same-numbered state routes in lieu of using US designations.

When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

The reason for US 3 changing over to MA 3 at its current location in Cambridge is due to; once upon a time, US 1 ran through that area pre-1971. Although it is allowed, MassDPW at the time didn't want any part of US 3 situated east of US 1. Why the US 3 designation wasn't extended to Boston when US 1 replaced MA C1 along Storrow Drive is anyone's guess.

Under their current policies, it is highly unlikely that AASHTO would approve the re-designation of MA 3 as part of US 3. IMHO, the more logical approach would be to discontinue US 3 entirely, then re-designate US 3 between Cambridge and Tyngsborough as part of MA 3, and re-designate US 3 from Nashua north as NH 3. This is also consistent with curretn AASHTO policy, which encourages adjacent states to create same-numbered state routes in lieu of using US designations.

Or alternatively, discontinue MA 3 and, as many have suggested, designate current MA 3 from Braintree to Bourne as an interstate, I-93 or an I-93 spur. I know, that is probably just as likely as extending US 3 to the Cape, but if MassDOT can look into redesignating MA 24 as an interstate, why not MA 3?

There are a lot in Connecticut, too. I've sometimes wondered how many Dunkin Donuts franchises you'd pass if you drove US 1 from New York City to Boston. I wouldn't be surprised if it's somewhere on the order of 50.

I figure it's somewhere on the order of 50 just from Providence to Boston.

When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

There is one of those on VFW Parkway in West Roxbury, about 1/4 mile south of another DD. When I lived in West Roxbury and used Providence Highway/US 1 to get to work, there were 7 DD along my 8 mile commute.

As I've always joked, one of the worst directions you can give anyone in the Boston area: Turn right when you see the Dunkin' Donuts. :-D

When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

The reason for US 3 changing over to MA 3 at its current location in Cambridge is due to; once upon a time, US 1 ran through that area pre-1971. Although it is allowed, MassDPW at the time didn't want any part of US 3 situated east of US 1. Why the US 3 designation wasn't extended to Boston when US 1 replaced MA C1 along Storrow Drive is anyone's guess.

Under their current policies, it is highly unlikely that AASHTO would approve the re-designation of MA 3 as part of US 3. IMHO, the more logical approach would be to discontinue US 3 entirely, then re-designate US 3 between Cambridge and Tyngsborough as part of MA 3, and re-designate US 3 from Nashua north as NH 3. This is also consistent with curretn AASHTO policy, which encourages adjacent states to create same-numbered state routes in lieu of using US designations.

Or alternatively, discontinue MA 3 and, as many have suggested, designate current MA 3 from Braintree to Bourne as an interstate, I-93 or an I-93 spur. I know, that is probably just as likely as extending US 3 to the Cape, but if MassDOT can look into redesignating MA 24 as an interstate, why not MA 3?

It's worth noting that many newer BGS/LGS' along the Southeast Expressway now only sport I-93 & US 1 shields but no MA 3 shields.

The thing is, if MA 3 is dropped, MA 3A from Neponset Circle south would have to be redesignated as well (MA 203 (?)).

This is also consistent with curretn AASHTO policy, which encourages adjacent states to create same-numbered state routes in lieu of using US designations.

why is this preferred to a US designation? 3 seems to be a specific instance of "does not fit the grid" but I'd be okay with, generally, more US routes that cross state lines even if they are short. as an example, ME-NH-VT 9 could be US-104.

When I was up in the Boston area this past weekend, I saw something I'd never thought I'd see; a Dunkin Donuts that was closed for good... the one along MA 1A in Revere just north of Bell Circle (MA 16/60 jct.).

The reason for US 3 changing over to MA 3 at its current location in Cambridge is due to; once upon a time, US 1 ran through that area pre-1971. Although it is allowed, MassDPW at the time didn't want any part of US 3 situated east of US 1. Why the US 3 designation wasn't extended to Boston when US 1 replaced MA C1 along Storrow Drive is anyone's guess.

Under their current policies, it is highly unlikely that AASHTO would approve the re-designation of MA 3 as part of US 3. IMHO, the more logical approach would be to discontinue US 3 entirely, then re-designate US 3 between Cambridge and Tyngsborough as part of MA 3, and re-designate US 3 from Nashua north as NH 3. This is also consistent with curretn AASHTO policy, which encourages adjacent states to create same-numbered state routes in lieu of using US designations.

Or alternatively, discontinue MA 3 and, as many have suggested, designate current MA 3 from Braintree to Bourne as an interstate, I-93 or an I-93 spur. I know, that is probably just as likely as extending US 3 to the Cape, but if MassDOT can look into redesignating MA 24 as an interstate, why not MA 3?

It's worth noting that many newer BGS/LGS' along the Southeast Expressway now only sport I-93 & US 1 shields but no MA 3 shields.

The thing is, if MA 3 is dropped, MA 3A from Neponset Circle south would have to be redesignated as well (MA 203 (?)).

Yes, there are complications. My solution would be simply to extend MA 53 both north and south to cover 3A on the original MA 3 route and change the number of 3A from Quincy to Kingston to 53A or another available two-digit number.

Or alternatively, discontinue MA 3 and, as many have suggested, designate current MA 3 from Braintree to Bourne as an interstate, I-93 or an I-93 spur. I know, that is probably just as likely as extending US 3 to the Cape, but if MassDOT can look into redesignating MA 24 as an interstate, why not MA 3?

Why just Bourne to Braintree? With its recent reconstruction, US 3 from Burlington to Nashua (and beyond?) more than meets freeway standards and could also be designated as a 95 spur (or 93 spur if you wanted to extend it along Everett Tpk to Manchester).

The thing is, if MA 3 is dropped, MA 3A from Neponset Circle south would have to be redesignated as well (MA 203 (?)).

Yeah, because 1A was changed in Dedham when US 1 was moved onto I-93. Oh wait.

Apples & oranges comparison. The southern end of the 1989 US 1 re-route is located less than a mile away from the northern end of that stretch of 1A and one could argue that MA 1A Northbound secretly runs along the southbound Boston-Providence Highway to the US 1/I-95/MA 128 interchange.

My earlier comment was in response to the earlier-suggested idea of eliminating MA 3 not re-routing it which would orphan roughly 53 miles of MA 3A.

While that certainly is one option; I believe the intent was to eliminate the duplicate state route number (from its US counterpart) all together.

My suggestion for extending MA 203 along the old 3A corridor, if MA 3 was indeed eliminated, was only because the eastern end of 203 ends at the northern end of 3A where it crosses the Southeast Expressway.

Granted, 203's western terminus has been orphaned since the 1989 US 1 re-route; but that's another story.

It's worth noting that prior to 1971, MA 203 was originally MA 3. Back then, the Southeast Expressway had no route number north of Neponset Circle/Granite Ave.

It's safe if you (and everyone else) follows the posted speed limit. In fact, you don't have much of a choice as the odds are very high that there will be a MA State Trooper clocking your speed. This stretch is a cash cow for speeding fines. Trust me, I've been pulled over here going 60 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. They're not fooling around. I always cruise control to the speed limit on this stretch to stay on the safe side.

Admittedly, the abrupt ending at Exit 5C is a huge design flaw. However, it was built in 1962 in a very different climate.

The reputation of the Lowell Connector as a very dangerous road is largely an urban legend that was fueled by a couple of bad wrong-way crashes that happened in the mid-1990s. If you look at the statistics, the Lowell Connector actually has one of the lowest crash rates of major Massachusetts highways.

And the abrupt ending of the northbound (inbound) highway at Gorham Street (Exit 5C) is not due to a design flaw, as the highway was originally planned to continue north of there and rejoin US 3 on the north side of Lowell. Rather, it's due to poor political policies of the early 1970s that resulted in the highway extension being cancelled.

I wonder if there is a structural way of lowering the operating speed, as opposed to the cash-cow method. something that would make the road appear more dangerous, without actually making it that way.

the low-speed techniques (lane narrowing, chicanes, etc) would be dangerous at 50-60mph, so that's not the way to go. maybe implied narrowing through the use of Botts dots inside the lane? basically, have an 18 inch "barrier" between lanes.

The MUTCD calls them "speed reduction markings". I've also seen them called optical speed bars. Regardless of what you call them, I feel like what is essentially an optical illusion would be ineffective for regular users.

What happened to the initiative to replace the button-copy Interstate shields on BGS panels that will not be replaced in the near future? Does anyone know if this ran out of steam or if MA DOT plans to continue it?

What happened to the initiative to replace the button-copy Interstate shields on BGS panels that will not be replaced in the near future? Does anyone know if this ran out of steam or if MA DOT plans to continue it?

not sure but what was the reasoning behind that initiative? the mobilization costs compared to the actual work performed would be very high. seems like they might as well just leave them be. was it some kind of safety concern regarding the shields falling off or just reflectivity concerns?

What happened to the initiative to replace the button-copy Interstate shields on BGS panels that will not be replaced in the near future? Does anyone know if this ran out of steam or if MA DOT plans to continue it?

According to my information, the replacement of button-copy Interstate shields on OH signs was strictly a one-time effort along I-93 between Somerville and Methuen that was apparently initiated by the MassDOT District office in Arlington, and was not part of a larger statewide project to renew shields on all OH signs.

What's interesting about that work is that, as the blue background and the button copy numerals on the shields were still perfectly fine, drivers could still ascertain they were Interstate route shields and the route number. It was only the red "INTERSTATE" banners that had severely faded.

In other words, the work was apparently done principally for aesthetic reasons instead of out of safety or other necessity. My spies tell me that the shield replacement was done through the District-wide sign maintenance contract (as opposed to a separate construction contract), and that the District did not solicit input from the Boston HQ office beforehand.

Of course, the whole project is now a moot point, as the signs in question on I-93 have since been replaced with new panels with new shields meeting current MassDOT specifications (demountable HIP numerals).

What happened to the initiative to replace the button-copy Interstate shields on BGS panels that will not be replaced in the near future? Does anyone know if this ran out of steam or if MA DOT plans to continue it?

According to my information, the replacement of button-copy Interstate shields on OH signs was strictly a one-time effort along I-93 between Somerville and Methuen that was apparently initiated by the MassDOT District office in Arlington, and was not part of a larger statewide project to renew shields on all OH signs.

What's interesting about that work is that, as the blue background and the button copy numerals on the shields were still perfectly fine, drivers could still ascertain they were Interstate route shields and the route number. It was only the red "INTERSTATE" banners that had severely faded.

In other words, the work was apparently done principally for aesthetic reasons instead of out of safety or other necessity. My spies tell me that the shield replacement was done through the District-wide sign maintenance contract (as opposed to a separate construction contract), and that the District did not solicit input from the Boston HQ office beforehand.

Of course, the whole project is now a moot point, as the signs in question on I-93 have since been replaced with new panels with new shields meeting current MassDOT specifications (demountable HIP numerals).

Thus based on the signing plans for the current I-93 sign replacement project, the only button copy I-93 shields likely to remain past next year are the MA 37 BGS's for the Exit 6 interchange. The plans indicating these will not be taken down.

Thus based on the signing plans for the current I-93 sign replacement project, the only button copy I-93 shields likely to remain past next year are the MA 37 BGS's for the Exit 6 interchange. The plans indicating these will not be taken down.

Let us not forget the button copy I-93 shields on the signs on Route 24 north at I-93 in Randolph, on I-95 north at I-93 in Canton, and on I-495 north and south at I-93 in Andover. The signs on I-495 will be replaced sometime late next year as part of the Lowell to Haverhill project just advertised for bids, but the signs in Randolph and Canton will remain until at least 2017 or 2018.

When traveling up I-95 the other night, I noticed that the reflectivity on all of the button copy shields in the Attleboro-Canton stretch was quite poor, which is what prompted me to ask the question. The button-copy shields were a stupid idea, IMHO.

Speaking of the Attleboro-Canton stretch, are they ever going to replace the missing BGS for Exit 1 (US 1/Broadway)? Also, isn't the sign bridge for R.I. Exits 30-29 under MA DOT's jurisdiction? Why hasn't that been replaced? Those signs are very old!

Those BGS' & gantry are from 1977. At the time, when MassHighway was replacing signs along I-95 circa 2001; they were likely only interested in replacing ones that involve interchanges that are actually located in Massachusetts.

This isn't the first case of a state snubbing an adjacent state in terms of highway signage replacements/updates.

For another example (I realize this one's not located in New England, let alone Massachusetts) of such snubbing was when DelDOT finished revamping its stretch of I-95 in Wilmington many years ago. The PennDOT owned & spec'd diagramatrc BGS' for the I-95/495 split still displays the City/Port of Wilmington mask over the original Port of Wilmington destination for I-495 South.

Note that the signs and support structure on I-95 SB for Exits 30 and 29 don't even appear on the project plans for the 2001 Attleboro to Canton sign replacement project (MassHighway Project # 601166). However, the northbound signs and structure at this location were replaced under that same project.

Note that the signs and support structure on I-95 SB for Exits 30 and 29 don't even appear on the project plans for the 2001 Attleboro to Canton sign replacement project (MassHighway Project # 601166). However, the northbound signs and structure at this location were replaced under that same project.

That just more than proves my earlier point regarding the BGS for the RI interchanges being snubbed. That northbound gantry has a BGS referencing an interchange located in MA (Exits 2A-B) whereas the old southbound gantry does not.

Which is why the northbound gantry & sign(s) were targeted for replacement back on that fore-mentioned MassHighway contract.

RI replaced all their signs in this area a couple years ago and didn't touch that SB overhead either, so it looks like it's stuck in limbo. Good news is that those classic signs will likely be around for a long time to come, bad news is that that is the only SB BGS for exit 30. There are none as you approach from further into MA.

I wondered about the missing exit 1 BGS as well. I don't think one was ever even installed there, leaving just the 3/4 mile advance back on the Exit 2A sign bridge.

I seem to recall that there used to be a sign bridge for the Exit 1 ramp which also contained an advance sign for Exit 30. I'm guessing it was destroyed/knocked down and then completely ignored. If you're unfamiliar to the area and not paying close attention to Exit 1, you will completely miss the exit.

Besides the ancient signage just prior to Exit 30, the only other mention of Roosevelt Ave. is currently is on a "Upcoming Pawtucket Exits" secondary sign prior to Exits 2A-B...with advance notice of 3 1/4 miles! You would think RI would have erected a single overhead sign for Exit 30 (as they are trending toward in lieu of sign bridges) closer to the off-ramp...but RI isn't quick on the draw when it comes to signage. The sign replacement projects in the 2000s were an outright miracle!

I do appreciate PHLBOS' point about bordering state snubbing. Can't all the DOTs just get along? Haha...

Those BGS' & gantry are from 1977. At the time, when MassHighway was replacing signs along I-95 circa 2001; they were likely only interested in replacing ones that involve interchanges that are actually located in Massachusetts.

Another thing about these oldies...the Exit 29 sign only references RI 114 and neglects US 1. It really should say US 1 to RI 114 as the subsequent signs in RI indicate.

What's really odd is that MA is usually really good about sigining upcoming exits in neighboring states. There is very clear signage on I-395, I-84, I-91, and I-95 (approaching the NH border) for upcoming rest areas and exits in the next state. So to have this pretty obvious snub of RI is unusual. The only other place I can think of with this bad of a snub is on US-3 heading into NH, where MA has no sign for NH Exit 1, which is only 1/4 mile over the line. Not sure about I-93 heading to NH, as I very rarely go north that way.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 1 on November 27, 2013, 10:59:49 PM

I-93 has a 1.6 mile difference between the state border and Exit 1, so it's no problem.

Note: I-95 is a slight problem, because it shows MA 107 and not NH 107.

What's really odd is that MA is usually really good about sigining upcoming exits in neighboring states. There is very clear signage on I-395, I-84, I-91, and I-95 (approaching the NH border) for upcoming rest areas and exits in the next state. So to have this pretty obvious snub of RI is unusual. The only other place I can think of with this bad of a snub is on US-3 heading into NH, where MA has no sign for NH Exit 1, which is only 1/4 mile over the line. Not sure about I-93 heading to NH, as I very rarely go north that way.

I took a closer look at the Canton to Attleboro project plans the other day and compared it to GSV at the sign location. I noted that the MA/RI state line at this location takes a bizarre angle in relation to the highway, which is excerbated by the presense of the bridge - which also results in having the "Entering Pawtcket Rhode Island" LGS placed within Massachusetts in front of the structure. Because of this, I suspect what happened is that the project designer presumed the Exit 30 -29 signs and support were in Rhode Island, without doing any detailed survey or other investigation first.

It may not mean much, but I noticed that some of the signs on I-91 between the Connecticut state line to Exit 14 at the West Springfield/Holyoke town line (I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike) are either new or different, such as the town line signs and the usual restrictions for no U-turn, etc.

I do appreciate PHLBOS' point about bordering state snubbing. Can't all the DOTs just get along? Haha...

Along those lines, when I drove all of I-95 in Connecticut (and Rhode Island and Massachusetts, too) last summer, I don't recall seeing even one sign with the place name Boston on it anywhere in Connecticut. First one I noticed was in Rhode Island.

Along those lines, when I drove all of I-95 in Connecticut (and Rhode Island and Massachusetts, too) last summer, I don't recall seeing even one sign with the place name Boston on it anywhere in Connecticut. First one I noticed was in Rhode Island.

That's because I-95 isn't the route to Boston.(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/connecticut050/i-091_nb_exit_029_02.jpg)

Note: I-95 is a slight problem, because it shows MA 107 and not NH 107.

It is worth noting that NH used to use square/rectangular shields for their state route markers decades ago.

Since the only difference between a MA and a NH shield shapewise is only with the left side (for the Old Man of the Mountain NH shield); MassHighway/DOT's using a generic rectangle for the the Route 107 shield is somewhat forgiveable in this case IMHO. You may recall that there's another thread that covers border-state DOT signing for interchanges located outside of their respective jurisdictions. Some states take the time to copy the shape/look of an adjacent state shield and in other instances, they don't.

I took a closer look at the Canton to Attleboro project plans the other day and compared it to GSV at the sign location. I noted that the MA/RI state line at this location takes a bizarre angle in relation to the highway, which is excerbated by the presense of the bridge - which also results in having the "Entering Pawtcket Rhode Island" LGS placed within Massachusetts in front of the structure. Because of this, I suspect what happened is that the project designer presumed the Exit 30 -29 signs and support were in Rhode Island, without doing any detailed survey or other investigation first.

While I certainly don't doubt the above happening at all or being the reason why that BGS gantry was ignored, I have to ask the following question; did anybody pull the previous DPW signing contract for that section of I-95 that erected the older BGS' and look over the limits of work? That would've been the first thing I'd have done.

If memory serves, MassDPW signing of Entering Pawtucket Rhode Island appeared to be SOP back then. A similar-vintage Mass DPW-spec'd BGS reading Entering East Providence Rhode Island was also erected along I-195 at the RI border.

Note: that particular BGS was replaced with a MassHighway-spec'd Welcome to Rhode Island BGS but the WEST 195 through-BGS is of the 1977-vintage (and it shows wearwise).

Most of the signs in the Herald's report were installed under the Big Dig project, or the pre-Big Dig "zipper lane" mitigation. A number of these signs - including the one that was featured on the Herald front page this morning - are designed to only activate when an overheight vehicle trips the sensors. And all of these signs, which are a combination of early LED and fiber-optic flip disc technology, are at least 20 years old. But the Herald doesn't let facts get in the way of "shock horror" reporting.

Wonder haw that number was derived by whomever provided it to the Administrator. Even given the recent CMS installations north of Boston on I-93 and I-95, the average age of all the CMS boards on MassDOT highways (including the Big Dig and the Pike) is still greater than eight years.

Most of the signs in the Herald's report were installed under the Big Dig project, or the pre-Big Dig "zipper lane" mitigation. A number of these signs - including the one that was featured on the Herald front page this morning - are designed to only activate when an overheight vehicle trips the sensors. And all of these signs, which are a combination of early LED and fiber-optic flip disc technology, are at least 20 years old. But the Herald doesn't let facts get in the way of "shock horror" reporting.

The one in that picture, if I'm not mistaken, is on the sign bridge on the southbound I-93/Zakim Bridge just before the tunnel entrance. (The giveaway is the BGS, on the same bridge, for the half-mile warning to the 1A-Airport exit.) That is not just an overheight warning and is in good working order. (Great example of a broken sign, Herald.) It regularly carries other messages, such as alerts about the weekend work on the I-90/Pru Tunnel or generic messages such as "State Law - Move Over/Slow Down for Emergency Vehicles."

Most of the signs in the Herald's report were installed under the Big Dig project, or the pre-Big Dig "zipper lane" mitigation. A number of these signs - including the one that was featured on the Herald front page this morning - are designed to only activate when an overheight vehicle trips the sensors. And all of these signs, which are a combination of early LED and fiber-optic flip disc technology, are at least 20 years old. But the Herald doesn't let facts get in the way of "shock horror" reporting.

The one in that picture, if I'm not mistaken, is on the sign bridge on the southbound I-93/Zakim Bridge just before the tunnel entrance. (The giveaway is the BGS, on the same bridge, for the half-mile warning to the 1A-Airport exit.) That is not just an overheight warning and is in good working order. (Great example of a broken sign, Herald.) It regularly carries other messages, such as alerts about the weekend work on the I-90/Pru Tunnel or generic messages such as "State Law - Move Over/Slow Down for Emergency Vehicles."

Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware that the use of that particular board was expanded to include regular MassDOT VMS messages.

This is a continuation (although on a much larger scale) of the travel time sign installations on Cape Cod that were just turned on today.

Here, from the MassDOT press release, is an image of the new permanent travel time signs:(http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/04/Go-Time-Traffic-Data-Sign-April-11-2014-200x300.jpg)From the mile marker in the background, this is on MA 25 East. It will be interesting to see what 3 exits show up on the signs along I-93 north and south of Boston. For example, at Exit 6 NB the current VMS reports the time to I-90, would they add exits before or after, perhaps Neponset Ave or Morrissey Blvd before and/or US 1/Tobin Bridge after?

From the mile marker in the background, this is on MA 25 East. It will be interesting to see what 3 exits show up on the signs along I-93 north and south of Boston. For example, at Exit 6 NB the current VMS reports the time to I-90, would they add exits before or after, perhaps Neponset Ave or Morrissey Blvd before and/or US 1/Tobin Bridge after?

I would think every freeway would be listed, as well as MA 3A/203 and MA 16.

It will be interesting to see what 3 exits show up on the signs along I-93 north and south of Boston. For example, at Exit 6 NB the current VMS reports the time to I-90, would they add exits before or after, perhaps Neponset Ave or Morrissey Blvd before and/or US 1/Tobin Bridge after?

I would think every freeway would be listed, as well as MA 3A/203 and MA 16.

Given that these new Travel-Time Display BGS' are not full-blown VMS'; listing more than 3 locations/interchanges per sign (if I'm interpreting what you're stating correctly) would be a bit overkill IMHO.

It will be interesting to see what 3 exits show up on the signs along I-93 north and south of Boston. For example, at Exit 6 NB the current VMS reports the time to I-90, would they add exits before or after, perhaps Neponset Ave or Morrissey Blvd before and/or US 1/Tobin Bridge after?

I would think every freeway would be listed, as well as MA 3A/203 and MA 16.

Given that these new Travel-Time Display BGS' are not full-blown VMS'; listing more than 3 locations/interchanges per sign (if I'm interpreting what you're stating correctly) would be a bit overkill IMHO.

Every freeway crossing I-93, as well as MA 3A/203 and MA 16, would be on at least one. Each sign would only have the closest 3, though.

As I understand it, not all of the proposed signs under the "statewide" GoTime project (to use MassDOT's new branding) will have three destinations, especially on roads like I-90 and the lower end of I-495 where there is some distance between interchanges. I've been told this is because, once you get beyond a certain distance (20 miles?), the travel time information does not quickly update and will become unreliable.

As I understand it, not all of the proposed signs under the "statewide" GoTime project (to use MassDOT's new branding) will have three destinations, especially on roads like I-90 and the lower end of I-495 where there is some distance between interchanges. I've been told this is because, once you get beyond a certain distance (20 miles?), the travel time information does not quickly update and will become unreliable.

I have been testing the accuracy of the temporary GoTime signs along MA 3 and I-93 into and out of Boston for the past month. There seems to be a wide difference in accurate times between signs. For example, the VMS just beyond the Brighton tolls heading east constantly overestimates the time it will get to Exit 15/Columbia Rd on I-93, sometimes by more than 50%. Yesterday, it indicated it would take 34 minutes to go the 5 miles, it took 17. A day the previous week it said it would take 26 minutes, it took 12. Could this vast discrepancy be do to the need to calculate speeds on two different highways.

The portable VMSs on I-93 South typically are more accurate with time estimates close to 5 minutes of the actual travel time. The time measured is that going from just after Mass Ave (Exit 18) the 10 miles to Exit 6 in Braintree. There is another sign at the 1/2 point, 5 miles to Exit 6 between off-ramps for Exits 11A and 11B. There is usually a lower estimated time from the 5 mile sign than you would expect from the Exit 18 estimate. For example, if at Exit 18 it says it would take 30 minutes to get to Exit 6, you would expect the 5 mile sign to indicate about 15 minutes, but usually that sign takes off a few minutes and would say 11 or 12, this despite the backups that occur approaching the Braintree Split which tend to increase the travel time to beyond what was indicated on the first sign. The VMS on MA 3 at I-93 seems fairly accurate, but typically overestimates the time by 5 to 10 minutes. Given that this is at off-peak, being the middle of the day, and traffic is typically going 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit, you would expect this overestimation (assuming time is calculated as if the max speed is the speed limit).

the VMS just beyond the Brighton tolls heading east constantly overestimates the time it will get to Exit 15/Columbia Rd on I-93, sometimes by more than 50%. Yesterday, it indicated it would take 34 minutes to go the 5 miles, it took 17. A day the previous week it said it would take 26 minutes, it took 12.

By contrast, during the PM rush the travel time to the Zakim Bridge on I-93 northbound, shown on the same sign, is pretty consistently *under*-estimated. I've lost count of the number of times it shows travel times at ten minutes or less and the actual times are 30 minutes or more.

Almost more puzzling is this sign a few hundred yards north of there on Mt. Vernon St>:

http://goo.gl/maps/KOYkQ

Route 3? When was the last time Route 3 ran separately from 93?

That sign was probably replaced at the same time the other signs in the area, like the one below, were, earlier this year. The previous ones in this area had all been installed before I-93 was routed along the Expressway.(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93signs2214e.jpg)

Are the speeds calculated by cell phone signals? And if so, are they rounded down to the speed limit?

Last I heard, they used Bluetooth signals. They're not necessarily rounded down, either. A few days ago I encountered a travel-time VMS on the MassPike which stated "27 MILES - 24 MINUTES." That's 67.5mph in a 65 zone.

I don't know -- those distances at 65mph are reached in the times posted plus sone fraction. I'm not saying this is how they do it, but based on these examples if they do drop the fraction it works out.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: Alps on May 23, 2014, 07:58:42 PM

Depends on the state. NJ won't go above the limit, but it DOES average 55 and 65 zones (I-287 south from I-80: 14 miles, 14 minutes). Some states intentionally underestimate at 50-55 in a 65, other states just tell it like it is (I think Chicagoland is honest) regardless of speeding.

Quote

(I think Chicagoland is honest)

EDIT: I think that's the first time anyone has typed that unironically.

Is this another case of a DCR (Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, former MDC) Parkway Unit sign goof? The BBS (Big Brown Sign) on Soldiers Field Road westbound, seen below, recently replaced a BGS with the same info. I know there is some sort of educational institution near Harvard Square, but does the Square itself (or Cambridge as a whole) merit a completely brown sign?(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/harvsign714.jpg)

Depends on the state. NJ won't go above the limit, but it DOES average 55 and 65 zones (I-287 south from I-80: 14 miles, 14 minutes). Some states intentionally underestimate at 50-55 in a 65, other states just tell it like it is (I think Chicagoland is honest) regardless of speeding.

Quote

(I think Chicagoland is honest)

EDIT: I think that's the first time anyone has typed that unironically.

As an aside, New York goes above the limit on Long Island. I've seen a VMS on the Northern State with a time that is only possible if you're going 70 (in a 55). No matter how I rounded it, you'd be speeding. Not that people actually go 55 on that road...

Is this another case of a DCR (Dept. of Conservation and Recreation, former MDC) Parkway Unit sign goof? The BBS (Big Brown Sign) on Soldiers Field Road westbound, seen below, recently replaced a BGS with the same info. I know there is some sort of educational institution near Harvard Square, but does the Square itself (or Cambridge as a whole) merit a completely brown sign?(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/harvsign714.jpg)

AFAIK, per current DCR Parkway signing standards, this sign should be green, not brown. Even if the intent of the sign was to point people to Harvard University, it would still be green. For signing purposes, colleges and universities are not considered historic (no matter how many decades they've been around), cultural, or recreational facilities.

I completely forgot I had pics of this somewhere to post. Huge project—looks like lane realignments over 2-3 miles to accommodate staging construction with the current bridge there.

That blue I-beam, it should be noted, is about 10 feet tall.

This is a pretty large project to have so little chatter about here, much like the Crosby's Corner relocation, which I'll also post pics of if I ever get around to it.

I'm upset about that truss disappearing, but shoulders are nice. Not just the bridge being reconstructed, but several small structures on either side of it. No chatter because it's a fairly cut-and-dried project with little intrigue and not a major new highway.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 1 on July 26, 2014, 09:00:36 PM

I want a picture of something.

It's a VMS southbound on I-93, just a few feet after the "Exit 42" sign.

Notice the duplicated letters on the top row. What you see below is not exact, but it's close.

Yes...that blue I-Beam was freakin' HUGE! Also, those three pictures were in order heading north on I-95. The first picture was in Newburyport, MA, north of Exit 57 (MA Route 113) and south of the Merrimack River.

There was this tiny picture heading southbound later that day:

(http://i.imgur.com/7JP6SHe.jpg)

I couldn't help but notice that the state seal things are gone above each side of the road on the old bridge.

I completely forgot I had pics of this somewhere to post. Huge project—looks like lane realignments over 2-3 miles to accommodate staging construction with the current bridge there.

That blue I-beam, it should be noted, is about 10 feet tall.

This is a pretty large project to have so little chatter about here, much like the Crosby's Corner relocation, which I'll also post pics of if I ever get around to it.

I'm upset about that truss disappearing, but shoulders are nice. Not just the bridge being reconstructed, but several small structures on either side of it. No chatter because it's a fairly cut-and-dried project with little intrigue and not a major new highway.

Not much intrigue, but still something interesting to see. The new bridge, it seems, will at least echo the arch of the old one, but with more style than substance:

Today's Globe reports that further remnants of the abandoned I-95 project in Saugus are being removed after 40 years. Sand from the 90-foot-wide berm across Rumney Marsh is being trucked down the road to replenish Winthrop Beach:

Changing topics slightly to variable messages for motorists from permanent sign placements, or the lack of them. Coming back from a family trip to the Cape last weekend, we stopped to eat in Plymouth taking Exit 6 off of MA 3 North. If MassDOT is not considering decommissioning US 44 east of MA 3, then they are doing a good job in hiding the route's existence. While the pull through signs on MA 3 put up during the last sign replacement contract do indicate US 44 and MA 3 run between exits 6 and 7, the paddle signage at the end of the Exit 6 ramp only indicated Samoset Street East and West. There were also no US 44 shields between MA 3 and MA 3A with the lone exception of an End US 44 sign approaching MA 3A. Heading west from Plymouth there is an old paddle sign on Samoset approaching 3A indicating US 44 West is straight ahead, but the new signs put up on 3A itself refer to West MA 44. There were, again, no US 44 shields west of 3A to 3, except for a lone trailblazer for US 44 west at the MA 3 on-ramp. The paddle signs at the intersection only refer to MA 3 North. There was also only a MA 3 reassurance marker after Exit 6. Don't know if the same sign patterns occur for the southbound Exit 6A ramp. For US 3 fans, (or those who would prefer US 3 south of Boston) there still is an erroneous South US 3 route marker southbound after the MA 14 exit in Duxbury (an erroneous North US 3 sign put up during a bridge replacement after Exit 14 in Rockland last year has been replaced).

Another photo I took over the weekend was one of the two greened-over and updated paddle/guide signs for the intersection of MA 53 and Derby Street in Hingham. Derby Street was officially MA 228 (and before that 128) up until at least 10 years ago. The signs have been up for at least 20 years indicating that MA 228 (North or South, depending on the sign) turned left onto Derby Street to get to MA 3. These were updated last month, and look like this now:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/ma53228dst1.jpg)However, none of the related trailblazer/reassurance markers at the intersection have been taken down, even the one a few feet behind where the photo was taken. One of the trailblazers in fact has even had its North banner replaced in the last couple years (that's the one you can see the back of across the intersection in the photo). It appears MassDOT can only fix one type of sign at a time.

Another photo I took over the weekend was one of the two greened-over and updated paddle/guide signs for the intersection of MA 53 and Derby Street in Hingham. Derby Street was officially MA 228 (and before that 128) up until at least 10 years ago. The signs have been up for at least 20 years indicating that MA 228 (North or South, depending on the sign) turned left onto Derby Street to get to MA 3. These were updated last month, and look like this now:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/ma53228dst1.jpg)However, none of the related trailblazer/reassurance markers at the intersection have been taken down, even the one a few feet behind where the photo was taken. One of the trailblazers in fact has even had its North banner replaced in the last couple years (that's the one you can see the back of across the intersection in the photo). It appears MassDOT can only fix one type of sign at a time.

Thought I'd provide a photo of the shields remaining beyond the intersection southbound:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/ma53228dw3.jpg)These date from the 1980s, the directional banner is at least 10 years older. All the photos referred to above are on my Misc. Mass sign page:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)

I thought the date on the front said 5-85 but that seems too late as I-190 opened in 1983 but the ramps might have been built as early as 1975. If 5-85 is the correct date, it seems kinda late for non-reflective button copy.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5589/14868545846_095c45b35d.jpg)

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3835/14704994197_0fe5e7f9f8.jpg)

Off topic: Why does MASS put button copy interstate shields on BGSs? Is it because button copy is brighter than demountable?

@doofy103 Massachusetts started putting button copy numerals on overhead sign Interstate shields in the mid 1980s. This was after MassDPW had some bad experiences with numerals on silk screened shields prematurely fading. For several years after the manufacturing of button copy was officially discontinued, at least one of MassHighway's sign fabricators continued to make the numerals in-house.

Most overhead signs on Massachusetts roadways with button copy numeral Interstate shields were installed during the "second generation" signing replacement projects completed between the early 1990s and the early 2000s.

In the late-2000s, MassDOT recognized that continued use of button copy numerals was impractical, and then changed their specifications to now require demountable HIP numerals on overhead sign Interstate shields instead.

I thought the date on the front said 5-85 but that seems too late as I-190 opened in 1983 but the ramps might have been built as early as 1975. If 5-85 is the correct date, it seems kinda late for non-reflective button copy.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5589/14868545846_095c45b35d.jpg)

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3835/14704994197_0fe5e7f9f8.jpg)

For a brief period, some DPW projects used button-copy lettering for its BGS'; the BGS' now being replaced along the Southeast Expressway (I-93) were installed in the mid-80s also had button-copy lettering but used reflective backgrounds.

As far as those I-290 BGS' were concerned; the selection of non-reflective button-copy (lettering only) may have been done in order to match in kind with the older BGS' along I-290 beyond the interchange so there would be a more uniform look... if such was indeed erected in the mid-80s.

IMHO, I have to wonder if that 5-85 datestamp was a mistake and should've been 5-75?

I was just browsing around the internet reading up (and of course virtually traveling the roads via GSV) and noticed a few things interesting about MA roads.

First of all, I noticed that after reading the article on the Sumner Tunnel in Boston on Wikipedia that MA 1A is sort of discontinuous at its southern terminus with its parent in North Park, Boston since the Big Dig. I see now the SB Sumner Tunnel defaults into either NB I-93 & US 1 or MA 3 NB (Storrow Drive), but has no ramps connecting to SB US 1 (or I-93 either). Motorists are to use either the Ted Williams Tunnel or make a turnabout at the Government Center.

Second, I noticed that the MA- RI border on US 1 is signed as it was a simple town line as no mention of the states except NB where US 1 crosses under I-95 one half mile north of the actual state line. Instead a two sided black on white sign reads Entering Pawtuckett going SB and Entering Attleboro going NB.

Finally the fact that Massachusetts will not allow for US 1A to be a US designation in Attleboro. US 1A is not connected at its northern end except via 2 miles of MA Route 1A (Newport Avenue) which I find interesting as well. Though many northerners do not care about designations like in the south many do not notice it, but I would figure that AASHTO would and force MA to sign it as US 1A and not its own alternate being that it is commissioned in Rhode Island as US 1 Alternate.

Ironically, if MassDPW (now MassDOT) had kept US 1 on its pre-1989 alignment through Boston, instead of creating the nonsensical concurrency with I-93, MA 1A would have a full interchange with US 1 coming out of the Sumner Tunnel: US 1 North via I-93 and US 1 South via Storrow Drive.

At state borders, the MassDOT Town Line paddle signs generally place the state in small black letters underneath the town name. I believe the sign in question has "Massachusetts" and "Rhode Island" under "Attleboro" and "Pawtucket" respectively, unless the sign has been changed since I last passed it. Sometimes the sign features an abbreviation of the state next to the town name. This variation may be found on US 5 on the MA-VT border.

To my knowledge, the only US "A" route in Mass was US 5A, which was signed until about 1970 as a regional alternative to US 5 (pre I-91) between Hartford and Springfield. As a native New Englander, it never bothered me that US 1A and MA 1A were signed differently: it's the same number.

Yeah I remember that when US 1 used Storrow Drive and the VFW Parkway. I was thinking about that one as in those days it would have worked.

Thanks for giving me the name of those interesting town border signs. Paddle Signs they are called, so I now know. To me they are quite attractive and much more than the WELCOME sign they have on US 1 which is too plain.

Yeah it is all the same as I point out designations whether state or US do not matter as its the route number. Though I was pointing out how interesting that one is how it changes at the state line from US to state the same route. Although Business US 1 & 9 in New Jersey used to change into NY 1A and NY 9A inside the Holland Tunnel as well years ago. That went from a business to an alternate which is actually a different loop designation all together.

Yeah I remember that when US 1 used Storrow Drive and the VFW Parkway. I was thinking about that one as in those days it would have worked.

What would have worked?

Quote

Thanks for giving me the name of those interesting town border signs. Paddle Signs they are called, so I now know. To me they are quite attractive and much more than the WELCOME sign they have on US 1 which is too plain.

Paddle signs is a roadgeek term to describe the small green guide signs used in Massachusetts. MassDOT Highway Division calls them D6 and D8 signs.

I've heard the town line signs called "bookleaf" signs, since they are meant to look like an open book.

It is worth noting that the Big Dig exit ramps were designed years before the decision was made to reroute US 1 onto I-93. Be that as it may, the main issue I have with the Big Dig ramp arrangement is that the interchange with the Sumner/Callahan Tunnels (MA 1A) as well as Mass Pike/Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90) aren't full/complete movement interchanges.

Forget the 1A through-movements for a moment (such can be handled theoretically by exiting onto the surface streets and follow the the nearest on-ramps to the tunnels); during the Big Dig's relatively short existence those extra ramps could've come in handy when one of the tunnels is either closed for repairs/construction and/or accidents.

While the tunnel ceiling collapse of 2006 did not occur on the actual Ted Williams Tunnel per say, it did happen far enough along the eastern end of the mainline I-90 tunnel (aka the Liberty Tunnel) that it indeed impacted would-be traffic coming from I-93 North (the tunnel in question was closed for repairs following the collapse) as well as through I-90 East traffic. Had there been a direct ramp from I-93 North to the Callahan Tunnel (MA 1A North), like there was pre-Big Dig; the associated traffic headaches due to the tunnel closure for repairs would've been greatly reduced.

Similar could be said when the Callahan Tunnel was closed earlier this year for repairs (there is no direct access to I-90 East from I-93 South).

At least when the Sumner Tunnel is closed for similar repairs as its Callahan counterpart (sometime later this year or early next year (?)); those using the Ted Williams Tunnel have direct access to I-93 North as well as I-93 South.

From what I've been told, the reasoning behind rerouting US 1 onto I-93 was due to trucks either hitting the low clearance overpasses and getting stuck on Storrow Drive (despite the various NO TRUCKS - CARS ONLY signs posted). Such was likely the rationale why MA 1A wasn't designated along Storrow Drive, which would've given motorists a signed alternate to US 1 in the immediate Boston area. It's worth noting that Storrow Drive only had the US 1 designation for about 18 years (1971-1989); prior to 1971, it was part of MA C1. The C routes were all discontinued (in most instances, redesignated to their parent numbers) circa 1971.

Truth be told, most motorists don't really know (nor care) that the XA routes technically run along their respective parent routes. In MA, the only known signed US 1/MA 1A concurrency is the relatively short stretch of US between Newburyport & Salisbury; though it's only signed that way southbound on the Salisbury side.

What I find even more interesting is the fact that the Sumner/ Callahan Tunnels cannot be anymore used for contraflow as before the Big Dig. Now with the new ramp configurations it cannot be done unless they close off the Sumner Tunnel ramp to Goverment Center which is on the extreme left, but that would make it awkward for SB I-93 to reach the Sumner if the Callahan is closed.

If they could be contraflow tunnels again, either one could be closed with minimal impact on traffic.

However, I can see the logic in the missing ramps at the I-93/ Tunnels interchange as the Ted Williams Tunnel does now cover those missing movements. Though I am surprised that MassDOT did not include a SB I-93 to EB I-90 ramp since you can go WB to NB very easily.

As far as XA routes go, I am very sure many do not even realize the meaning of the A suffix and just like me as a child considered it a route of its own as being a loop of the number it bears. Like I said in another post, most northerners call all roads regardless of designation a "ROUTE" and hardly ever uses the "I" for interstate. So whether you make it US 1 ALT or SR 1 ALT it will appear the same in people's eyes.

However, I can see the logic in the missing ramps at the I-93/ Tunnels interchange as the Ted Williams Tunnel does now cover those missing movements.

Oh I know that and under normal operating circumstances, that's fine; however, as we've all seen or heard about over the last decade, those missing movements can be problematic (especially during peak times) when one of the tunnels is temporarily closed for whatever reason.

The issue of MA 1A in Attleboro is also lessened now that RI has "downgraded" its US 1A to just RI 1A. About two years ago, all the US 1A shields in East Providence and Pawtucket were replaced with just RI 1A shields. This was deliberate, these were the only shields changed on most assemblies and they got all of them. Not sure about the stretch in Cranston/Providence, as I haven't been that way in a while. The only US-1A shields I know still exist are the ones on the Exit 18 BGSs on I-95.

I noticed that once US 1A (or RI 1A now as you say) according to street view does not have any signs whatsoever after it concurs with both I-195 and US 6 in East Providence. Where 1A leaves I-195 at Exit 2 and through Providence there are no trailblazers for it at all even where US 44 is signed on Exit 2 as both of them routes have a small concurrency once free from the interstate.

I noticed that once US 1A (or RI 1A now as you say) according to street view does not have any signs whatsoever after it concurs with both I-195 and US 6 in East Providence. Where 1A leaves I-195 at Exit 2 and through Providence there are no trailblazers for it at all even where US 44 is signed on Exit 2 as both of them routes have a small concurrency once free from the interstate.

Were the RI US 1A signs an error from the beginning, or just not replaced with the proper signs until recently? Looking through the AASHTO Route Log from 1989, there is no entry for a US 1 Alternate route in RI, there is one for CT though. Haven't looked through the earlier decisions posted recently yet.

I noticed that once US 1A (or RI 1A now as you say) according to street view does not have any signs whatsoever after it concurs with both I-195 and US 6 in East Providence. Where 1A leaves I-195 at Exit 2 and through Providence there are no trailblazers for it at all even where US 44 is signed on Exit 2 as both of them routes have a small concurrency once free from the interstate.

Were the RI US 1A signs an error from the beginning, or just not replaced with the proper signs until recently? Looking through the AASHTO Route Log from 1989, there is no entry for a US 1 Alternate route in RI, there is one for CT though. Haven't looked through the earlier decisions posted recently yet.

I don't think Alternate routes are necessarily included in AASHTO logs. It definitely was official while it existed. I'm not changing my US 1A page.

This has probably been asked before, (and by myself no-less, but my memory is goddamned terrible) but in the case of Massachusetts paddle signs, is the top sign supposed to be larger than the sign below it? For example:

(http://i.imgur.com/viWhPRp.png)From Google Street View

I feel like it is much harder to attempt to read the second sign (for 128 South) than it is to the Northbound one because there's a significant size difference in the two signs.

Yes. The little sign usually has a left turn, or in this case secondary right. The larger sign is emphasizing "the turn's right here or very near," while in this instance the second turn is probably after crossing over or under 128, at which point it likely has its own large sign.

This has probably been asked before, (and by myself no-less, but my memory is goddamned terrible) but in the case of Massachusetts paddle signs, is the top sign supposed to be larger than the sign below it? For example:

(http://i.imgur.com/viWhPRp.png)From Google Street View

I feel like it is much harder to attempt to read the second sign (for 128 South) than it is to the Northbound one because there's a significant size difference in the two signs.

FWIW, that's an older spec'd D6/D8 sign (MassDOT's official term). Newer signs now feature MA route shields with a black border (like the stand-alone trailblazers) and are usually the same size in both the upper (D6 aka Paddle) and lower (D8) panels.

Current D6 signs are normally 5 feet wide, and current D8 signs are normally 4 feet wide. Some D8 signs are 5 feet wide, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, once MassDOT finally develops and adopts the new D6/D8 sign design standards to reflect the transition to mixed-case lettering (which should happen sometime in 2015), it's highly likely that the current top-mounted signs and tubular posts will go away, to be replaced with extruded panels and steel-beam posts (if not the 'tuning fork' posts used in Downtown Boston for similar signs installed during the Big Dig).

Out of curiosity, how does the lettering being mixed case necessitate the change in sign type and support? An extruded panel with steel beam post and associated foundation costs more than the current support types.

Out of curiosity, how does the lettering being mixed case necessitate the change in sign type and support? An extruded panel with steel beam post and associated foundation costs more than the current support types.

Perhaps it's an assumption (probably correct) that mixed-case lettering is going to necessitate a larger text size in order to be legible to drivers, and the larger text size is going to necessitate a wider sign and redesigned supports.

I have mixed feelings about the D6/D8 assemblies. On one hand, they're generally quite durable and helpful to the motorist -- certainly more so than the surface road signage crap deposited then neglected by Connecticut and Rhode Island. On the other hand, the aesthetic appearance of the D8 signs bothers me. Whatever direction or destination posted on the D8 sign looks like an afterthought and less important than the direction or destination posted on the D6.

Current D6 signs are normally 5 feet wide, and current D8 signs are normally 4 feet wide. Some D8 signs are 5 feet wide, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, once MassDOT finally develops and adopts the new D6/D8 sign design standards to reflect the transition to mixed-case lettering (which should happen sometime in 2015), it's highly likely that the current top-mounted signs and tubular posts will go away, to be replaced with extruded panels and steel-beam posts (if not the 'tuning fork' posts used in Downtown Boston for similar signs installed during the Big Dig).

Personally, I would hate to see the tubular post-mounts go away. If the overall text heights aren't going to change; I don't see why MassDOT has to totally redo their mounting specs in the process.

Current D6 signs are normally 5 feet wide, and current D8 signs are normally 4 feet wide. Some D8 signs are 5 feet wide, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, once MassDOT finally develops and adopts the new D6/D8 sign design standards to reflect the transition to mixed-case lettering (which should happen sometime in 2015), it's highly likely that the current top-mounted signs and tubular posts will go away, to be replaced with extruded panels and steel-beam posts (if not the 'tuning fork' posts used in Downtown Boston for similar signs installed during the Big Dig).

Personally, I would hate to see the tubular post-mounts go away. If the overall text heights aren't going to change; I don't see why MassDOT has to totally redo their mounting specs in the process.

Ok, so me and my family took a trip to Boston in June 2013. For a few days we went to Martha's Vineyard (an island off the southern coast of MA), and in Falmouth we had to take a ferry to get to the island. Nothing wrong with that at all, just a question; has MassDOT ever thought about building a bridge from Falmouth to Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff? If it would be really expensive, they could make it a toll. It could be a new state route for MA, and it could even serve some of the towns on the island. Just an idea.

I suspect the idea of a bridge from Falmouth to either Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff would run into even more political resistance from the rich and entitled locals who live on the islands than the wind turbines have.

I suspect the idea of a bridge from Falmouth to either Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff would run into even more political resistance from the rich and entitled locals who live on the islands than the wind turbines have.

For reference, the two closest streets on the island are Golf Club Road and Yacht Club Road.

I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip. They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip. They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary. It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

@PHLBOS - MassDOT's current D6/D8 specifications are based on the concept of using one of a number of standard sized sheet aluminum sign blanks, and formatting the legend of any particular sign to fit on a particular blank. Changing to mixed case legend creates problems with this practice, especially for the top-mounted signs.

As such, going from sheet aluminum signs to extruded panels appears to be a logical move. Even if MassDOT were to stick to sheet aluminum panels, it will be necessary to ditch the tubular posts and top-mounting of signs in favor of "traditional" steel beam (S or W beam) posts due to the increased loading of the larger signs.

BTW, the reason MassDOT is going to a 8/6 mixed case, in lieu of a 6/4.5 mixed case, for these signs is to maintain adequate legibilty. They have determined that, at the distances drivers are normally expected to read a D6/D8 sign assembly, that going to 6/4.5. will result in texts that are less legible than with the current 6 inch uppercase.

Do not have a photo, but a good example of a mixed-case D6/D8 assembly was recently installed on Route 113 east at I-95 in Newburyport. It replaced a larger extruded sign assembly, which was objected to by abutters due to the "excessive size" of the panels.

@Zeffy - MassDOT's current spec for D6/D8 legends calls for Series C font. The sign I mentioned above was made with Series D font, which will likely become the new standard for D6/D8 signs.

@Zeffy - MassDOT's current spec for D6/D8 legends calls for Series C font. The sign I mentioned above was made with Series D font, which will likely become the new standard for D6/D8 signs.

MassDOT's current spec allows for Series B for longer place names. (PROVIDENCE RI is one I recall running into.) I assume the use of extruded panels will mean Series D is used on all signs unless there is a horizontal clearance issue?

I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip. They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary. It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

Actually, I was (half) kidding. Most of them pack up a large, ostentatious vehicle and drive everywhere (hence the gridlock, though the army of trucks waging all-out total war on unkempt landscaping also contributes there).

Biking on Nantucket is great, actually, because of the fact that the main cross-island roads have dedicated, fence-separated bike paths along them, and because most people drive.

Do not have a photo, but a good example of a mixed-case D6/D8 assembly was recently installed on Route 113 east at I-95 in Newburyport. It replaced a larger extruded sign assembly, which was objected to by abutters due to the "excessive size" of the panels.

The new D6/D8 assembly that you speak of (https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Newburyport,+MA&aq=0&oq=newbury&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.376076,0.602188&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Newburyport,+Essex+County,+Massachusetts&ll=42.815607,-70.920573&spn=0.000002,0.001176&z=20&layer=c&cbll=42.815578,-70.920702&panoid=pe2aTT4ZYb4Cb3f2pfB-5Q&cbp=12,106.97,,0,8.42) along MA 113 Eastbound prior to the I-95 interchange. Remnants (post foundations) of the larger BGS assembly can be seen directly behind it. The complaint about the larger BGS was due to it being placed in a residential area.

So this is the sign (no pun intended) of things to come in the Bay State?

I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip. They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary. It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

The quickest way in is to take Sandpiper Air right? Not a big fan of Aeromass, I hear their owner is a bit of a jerk.

I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip. They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary. It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

The quickest way in is to take Sandpiper Air right? Not a big fan of Aeromass, I hear their owner is a bit of a jerk.

And deal with a schedule? If you vacation on Nantucket, surely your own plane will be faster.

I've never been to the Vineyard, but on Nantucket it seems like most people just drive off the ferry and park the car for the duration of the trip. They don't need it because they already have a few cars they keep there for on-island use.

They park their cars probably because gridlock on the island (only 14 miles long and 3.5 miles wide) during the summer is legendary. It's almost always faster to bike or walk to get around Nantucket.

The quickest way in is to take Sandpiper Air right? Not a big fan of Aeromass, I hear their owner is a bit of a jerk.

And deal with a schedule? If you vacation on Nantucket, surely your own plane will be faster.

Sandpiper DOES only have one plane so you would have to plan carefully.

Do not have a photo, but a good example of a mixed-case D6/D8 assembly was recently installed on Route 113 east at I-95 in Newburyport. It replaced a larger extruded sign assembly, which was objected to by abutters due to the "excessive size" of the panels.

It looks like these panels are the same size. Will this also be the case in the future? I know you said it will be extruded panels, will it be one panel with a horizontal dividing line?

@mass citizen The reason MassDOT is considering a change in the sign support design is threefold. First, the top mounted (D6) signs currently require that the legend be designed so there is a vertical space of at least 6 inches on the bottom of the panel - this is so that the bracket used to mount the sign does not obscure any of the legend. With the taller legend, and if the legend contains 'g's, 'y's, and the like, it is very difficult to maintain this spacing. Unlike top-mounted signs on tubular posts, signs mounted to steel beam posts don't require a minimum bottom vertical spacing.

Second, with the new mixed case standard, many of the bottom bracket-mounted (D8) signs will have to be larger than the current standard sizes (PHLBOS's photo of the assembly on 113 in Newburyport is a good example and, yes, both panels are the same size). This creates the potential for loading issues with the larger panels - traditional MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT tubular post design considers one large sign and one small one, not two large signs.

Lastly, as I mentioned in a previous post, MassDOT may opt to go to extruded aluminum panels for these signs - at least for signs with longer legends (such as approaching Interstate and freeway entrances). Mounting extruded panels to tubular posts, apart from potential loading issues, would require custom mountings - such mountings will make sign installation more difficult.

Note that MassDOT has recently been transitioning to steel beam posts for larger regulatory, warning, and route marker assemblies used on Interstates and freeways. Extending this practice to D6 and D8 guide signs seems to be a logical extension of this practice.

Note that MassDOT has recently been transitioning to steel beam posts for larger regulatory, warning, and route marker assemblies used on Interstates and freeways. Extending this practice to D6 and D8 guide signs seems to be a logical extension of this practice.

Has this been incorporated into a new standard? I can't find anything on the MassDOT website. Or is it just an unwritten trial so far?

Has this been incorporated into a new standard? I can't find anything on the MassDOT website. Or is it just an unwritten trial so far?

MassDOT is in the process of completely updating their Traffic Standard Details, which will again be issued as a separate document from the Construction Standards. As part of this, the current Guide Sign Policy for Secondary State Highways will be expanded to include MassDOT-specific standards for all guide signing - including the use of steel beam posts for larger warning, regulatory, and route marker signs on Interstates and freeways.

The revised document is expected to be completed by late Spring of 2015. At that time, it will be posted on MassDOT's public web site.

sounds like a case of "if we want to keep using federal funds for signs we have to use Title Case legends like the MUTCD says"

Actually I was referring to the change in sign support, not the change in lettering.

I was suggesting that the change in lettering would result in an increase in size, which in turn would require a change in support. I also knew that the D6 sign requires a 6" space at the bottom for the mounting bracket. The Route 113 example does look to be the same size as a current D6 sign, but it only has one line of legend. Current standards have two lines of legend and a directional legend (NEXT RIGHT, SECOND LEFT, etc.) or an arrow.

sounds like a case of "if we want to keep using federal funds for signs we have to use Title Case legends like the MUTCD says"

Actually I was referring to the change in sign support, not the change in lettering.

I was suggesting that the change in lettering would result in an increase in size, which in turn would require a change in support. I also knew that the D6 sign requires a 6" space at the bottom for the mounting bracket. The Route 113 example does look to be the same size as a current D6 sign, but it only has one line of legend. Current standards have two lines of legend and a directional legend (NEXT RIGHT, SECOND LEFT, etc.) or an arrow.

I understand your and roadman's points but I am wondering has a structural analysis been done or is it based on simply engineering judgement? With the additional costs required not just for labor but for steel beam, extruded panels, and increased foundation size (current D6 foundations are unreinforced whereas steel beams will require steel reinforcement) I would hope there would be some kind of analysis to determine that, yes the additional lines of legend do require a different structure, or no we can keep the current system. I do understand roadmans other reasons he mentioned for the change but I also am wondering if the benefits to motorists are worth the additional costs, which will add up significantly on a statewide basis.

My point also applies to the warning/route signs which will go from a hollow steel tubular post (P5 post in the standards) driven into the ground to a steel beam post with concrete foundation. Let's keep in mind the increased maintenance cost to fix/replace one of these warning signs/foundations in instances of vehicle or plow collision.

MassDOT has had previous experience with steel beam posts for D6/D8 assemblies (special circumstances where "standard' sized D8 panels could not be used - the newer signs at MA2/MA2A Concord Rotary are a good example), as well as with small extruded panels on single steel beam posts (Interstate/freeway town line signs are a good example of this).

Recent bit prices have shown that the cost differential between tubular posts and single steel beam posts, and .25 inch thick sheet aluminum panels versus extruded aluminum panels are not significant, especially when you consider the full cost of various MassDOT sign replacement and sign maintenance projects. Also consider that, for larger regulatory, warning, and route marker signs on Interstates and freeways, the increase in cost for steel beam posts (as opposed to the current telescopic posts) is offset by the increased durability of the signs - which means fewer knockdowns due to things like wind and snow removal activities.

The Route 113 example does look to be the same size as a current D6 sign, but it only has one line of legend. Current standards have two lines of legend and a directional legend (NEXT RIGHT, SECOND LEFT, etc.) or an arrow

That's because the larger BGS' the new structure replaced only had one listed destination for each direction. At the other side of the interchange, along 113 Westbound, the large BGS' remain. Such gives a sense what the original BGS' along the 113 Eastbound looked like (granted the order of the I-95 directions are opposite, but one gets the general idea).

Two questions and a comment regarding the roadside portable VMS signs now part of our permanent landscape here:

Q1: is the VMS on 95 South two miles prior to the Mass. border owned and operated by Massachusetts? It follows the Mass. conventions and today indicated time and distance to Mass. 113.

Q2: Is there a timetable for statewide permanent signs as now exist on the Cape?

Comment: A pitfall of the "helpful hint" messages that clutter our VMSes came up the other day entering the Sumner Tunnel. While the BGSes clearly indicate "93—left lane only" and "Storrow Drive—right lane only," the adjacent VMS uselessly and confusingly says "Left lane travel for passing only."

I suspect the idea of a bridge from Falmouth to either Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff would run into even more political resistance from the rich and entitled locals who live on the islands than the wind turbines have.

I've been a Vineyard-goer my whole life and this drives me crazy. It's "Oak Bluffs" not "Oaks Bluff". Why is it that everyone makes this mistake?

I suspect the idea of a bridge from Falmouth to either Vineyard Haven or Oaks Bluff would run into even more political resistance from the rich and entitled locals who live on the islands than the wind turbines have.

I've been a Vineyard-goer my whole life and this drives me crazy. It's "Oak Bluffs" not "Oaks Bluff". Why is it that everyone makes this mistake?

I don't know. You should go down to Boston Commons or the Public Gardens and protest.

Q1: is the VMS on 95 South two miles prior to the Mass. border owned and operated by Massachusetts? It follows the Mass. conventions and today indicated time and distance to Mass. 113.

I will check into that for you and report back here.

Quote

Q2: Is there a timetable for statewide permanent signs as now exist on the Cape?

Yes. Bids for Phase II of the project were opened on September 30th. The project, which encompasses approximately 150 signs and 230 Bluetooth readers across the remainder of the state's Interstates and freeways, is currently scheduled to be completed between late 2015 and early 2016. see http://www.mhd.state.ma.us//default.asp?pgid=content/projectsRoot&sid=wrapper&iid=http://www.mhd.state.ma.us//ProjectInfo/

Quote

Comment: A pitfall of the "helpful hint" messages that clutter our VMSes came up the other day entering the Sumner Tunnel. While the BGSes clearly indicate "93left lane only" and "Storrow Driveright lane only," the adjacent VMS uselessly and confusingly says "Left lane travel for passing only."

Comment: A pitfall of the "helpful hint" messages that clutter our VMSes came up the other day entering the Sumner Tunnel. While the BGSes clearly indicate "93left lane only" and "Storrow Driveright lane only," the adjacent VMS uselessly and confusingly says "Left lane travel for passing only."

$&@%#!!

Groan.

The comedians at MassDOT have scored their latest hit with an ad on a bright LED billboard high up and off the side of I-93 south in Medford, urging drivers to end distracted driving and keep their eyes on the road.

My passenger and I exchanged dumbfounded looks after passing this, further compounding the problem.

Comment: A pitfall of the "helpful hint" messages that clutter our VMSes came up the other day entering the Sumner Tunnel. While the BGSes clearly indicate "93left lane only" and "Storrow Driveright lane only," the adjacent VMS uselessly and confusingly says "Left lane travel for passing only."

$&@%#!!

Groan.

The comedians at MassDOT have scored their latest hit with an ad on a bright LED billboard high up and off the side of I-93 south in Medford, urging drivers to end distracted driving and keep their eyes on the road.

My passenger and I exchanged dumbfounded looks after passing this, further compounding the problem.

There's one of these on I-95 in Canton approaching I-93 as well. I found myself looking at it one day to figure out what it said, then chuckling to myself when I realized that I took my eyes off the road to take in a message combating distracted driving.

The 'feel good' public messages you see on digital billboards are often a carrot the ad company will offer to the local community or state DOT to grease the wheels for approval of the display.

My biggest pet peeve with digital billboards is that companies that are allowed to install new digital displays, or convert existing static displays to digital, in an area where they already have a large number of other static billboards (Clear Channel is notorious for this - just count the number of billboards along I-93 between the Zakim Bridge and the Medford/Stoneham line) are not required to remove some of them in exchange for permission to install a digital one. If a digital display can show between four and six separate ads, then logic dictates that between four and six adjacent static displays should be removed.

Unfortunately, we as a society are so ignorant or uncaring that we are failing to see how the marketing types are truly taking over and invading our privacy and quality of life. Very unfortunate.

He was never an "interim" mayor. He became mayor when his predecessor, Ray Flynn, was named ambassador to the Vatican. Per the city charter, when the mayor resigns or dies in office, the City Council president becomes mayor, and that's the office Menino held at the time.

He was never an "interim" mayor. He became mayor when his predecessor, Ray Flynn, was named ambassador to the Vatican. Per the city charter, when the mayor resigns or dies in office, the City Council president becomes mayor, and that's the office Menino held at the time.

Most people would consider an unelected official as holding an "interim" or "acting" position, whether that is the formal title or not. A google search of various articles also refers to interim/acting mayor Menino as winning 64% of the vote in his first election.

http://www.wbur.org/2014/10/30/menino-remembrance-boeri

http://www.wcvb.com/chronicle/the-death-of-thomas-menino/29446318In this chronicle interview, Menino himself says "I became acting mayor on June 12 at 5:00, can't forget that date"

Maybe for design but not construction. IIRC, ground wasn't broken for that project until Mayor Flynn's 2nd term (late 80s/early 90s); the first phase of construction being utility relocations.

Construction began on the Central Artery North Area (CANA) phase of the Big Dig (Charlestown City Square) in March of 1987. Construction on the remaining portions of the project began in early 1989.

Thanks for the info.

Nonetheless while the CANA & Big Dig projects were be ultimately connected; the two were still considered to be separate projects. The fore-mentioned utility relocations were in reference to the main Big Dig project and not the earlier CANA project.

Drove to Newport for a meeting yesterday via MA 24. I haven't driven the whole length of 24 for awhile, and noticed a few new things. (Was not able to take any photos due to the rainy and windy weather):They've placed a permanent 'real time' to 3 destinations sign southbound after the merge with MA 79. It had the distances to MA 79 South, US 6 and I-195. Northbound still used the temporary VMS to convey traffic times.New style exit signage was put up for the Innovation Way Exit 8B opened in 2012, as well as advance signs for former Exit 8, now Exit 8A. Under milepost based numbering Exit 8B would be Exit 9 and Exit 8A Exit 8, so the exit will go from 8 to 8A back to 8 sometime in the near future. No new overhead signage seen from the short drive along I-195/MA 24.There were several orange ground mounted and VMS signs southbound discouraging people to take MA 79 to I-195 due to the reconstruction project in Fall River.There was a newish looking South MA 24 reassurance shield with a heavy black border after leaving I-195 East toward the RI border. You could call it a CT style sign, but the numbers were in the standard MA font (a check on StreetView showed a traditional MA 24 sign there in the summer of 2012 with construction going on, so a poor contractor replacement?). As for getting to Newport, glad I didn't have to pay the 10 cent toll crossing the new bridge on RI 24.

Do you get a special prize for dragging out the green and white plate the longest? There are some rough looking ones out there. At what point does it just make more sense to get a "Spirit of America" plate?

Do you get a special prize for dragging out the green and white plate the longest? There are some rough looking ones out there. At what point does it just make more sense to get a "Spirit of America" plate?

Welcome.

You have to understand that in an area settled since 1630 that has a very high number of transplants (hand raised), you get an awful lot of pissing contests over "trust me, I been here a long time." Just go into a bar and talk about the weather being exceptionally warm/cold/snowy/wet/odd. Watch as several people pull out a weather event far enough back that you don't remember and say "This is nothin'."

This is also a place where people periodically try to end arguments with "Are you from here?" because obviously if you're not originally, your opinion is worthless.

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots. You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them. To some people this is a status symbol.

Do you get a special prize for dragging out the green and white plate the longest? There are some rough looking ones out there. At what point does it just make more sense to get a "Spirit of America" plate?

Many people (like one of my co-workers) don't like the idea that you are FORCED to give up your registration number for another one when you "upgrade" general issue red on white plates. Additionally, there are many people out there who also object to the requirement of putting a plate on the front of their car, which wasn't necessary with the single green on white plates.

I know some of this may sound very silly. But people in Massachusetts have always had a strange obsession with license plates. This is why, in large part due to the local media that can't be bothered with dealing with REAL issues instead, the Registry of Motor Vehicles (Massachusetts' version of the DMV) now wastes their time and the taxpayer's money every year holding a "low number license plate lottery'.

Do you get a special prize for dragging out the green and white plate the longest? There are some rough looking ones out there. At what point does it just make more sense to get a "Spirit of America" plate?

Welcome.

You have to understand that in an area settled since 1630 that has a very high number of transplants (hand raised), you get an awful lot of pissing contests over "trust me, I been here a long time." Just go into a bar and talk about the weather being exceptionally warm/cold/snowy/wet/odd. Watch as several people pull out a weather event far enough back that you don't remember and say "This is nothin'."

This is also a place where people periodically try to end arguments with "Are you from here?" because obviously if you're not originally, your opinion is worthless.

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots. You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them. To some people this is a status symbol.

Welcome to the northeast. New York is the same way. Yes, many people use that question to try and end arguments. Unfortunately, that's part of the culture. People use being here forever as a status symbol, partially because there are many transplants who come in and outside influences trying to change the way things are.

Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston. It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

The low number plate lottery was in response to the cultish coveting of said numbers and their provision mainly to the well connected. I was tempted to enter because they invited all participants to a breakfast drawing and I wanted to see what oddballs are drawn to such a thing (plus: breakfast!) but I never did, and they moved it to Dan Rea's radio show, and I lost interest.

In New Jersey one does not have to replace one's license plate (tag). There are still some around from the sixties when they had three letters and three numbers separated be a dash (AAA-123) on them. Now there are all sorts of letter/number combinations grouped in threes separated by the outline of the state.

At one time there were plates with seven letters/numbers on them. They stopped issuing them when the state police said they were too hard to read. However, some of them are still around.

Also, for a while their colour was changed from "straw" to blue. They were eventually changed back to "straw". There are still blue coloured plates being used.

Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston. It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

Can't be worse than Buffalo. They want all of New England and eastern New York to burn in hell.

Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston. It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

Can't be worse than Buffalo. They want all of New England and eastern New York to burn in hell.

Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston. It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

Can't be worse than Buffalo. They want all of New England and eastern New York to burn in hell.

Why?

Good flipping question. I think they have envy. First day of school after I moved here, a teacher went on a rant about how the region and people from it to be cast out of this country. While not everyone hates the east coast, politicians often win elections on a strictly anti-downstate/Albany/eastern NY platform around here. I don't get it, because NYC tax dollars pay for everything up here, but they make Boston seem like somewhere that loves other cities.

Clarifying, I get the loathing for downstate (always been that way), but New England? Aside from hardcore Patriots fans, I don't think people here have any animosity (or feelings whatsoever) toward Buffalo.

This is probably a good time to mention what the point of my trip is. I'll be joining the ranks of Massachusetts transplants and am in town apartment hunting. I still have to finish school first so I won't be here permanently for at least another 6 months but I wanted a head start (and an excuse to use my school vacation to road geek). Got a gig lined up with a flexible start date that I literally just found out about.

I briefly considered joining the ranks of New Hampshire residents who commute to Boston but I simulated that commute and even with little traffic hated everyone around me.

I'm looking forward to joining the pissing contest of "I've been here longer than you."

Perhaps worse here than New York, since that city is viewed as the taker and the ruiner of all that is pure and good in Deare Olde Boston. It did not endear young me to the locals to show up here and remark regularly how things are not like New York, from whose environs I came.

The low number plate lottery was in response to the cultish coveting of said numbers and their provision mainly to the well connected. I was tempted to enter because they invited all participants to a breakfast drawing and I wanted to see what oddballs are drawn to such a thing (plus: breakfast!) but I never did, and they moved it to Dan Rea's radio show, and I lost interest.

OMG - some "well connected" people have a low number plate. SO WHAT! - it's not like state government has any REAL problems to deal with. And if the issue of low plate numbers is really that serious (considering that Jerry 'seat belt laws deprive drivers of a basic freedom" Williams and Howie "I made my living off of Whitey Bulger" Carr were two of the reporters who harrassed the state into dealing with the (non) scandal of low number plates, I really doubt it is serious), then why didn't the RMV just recall the plates when due for renewal and not re-issue them?

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots. You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them. To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots. You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them. To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No. Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV. I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots. You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them. To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No. Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV. I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.

You don't need to turn in plates to cancel a policy. You may, however, be required to either turn them in or submit an affidavit that they were lost or destroyed if you attempt to register another car in-state. And, of course, if you reregister the car out-of-state, they couldn't care less what you did with your Mass. plates.

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots. You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them. To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No. Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV. I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.

Since many insurance companies operate in several states, they may have stayed with the same company when they transferred their registrations & insurance to another state.

Assuming that those old plates have long since expired I believe that the RMV considers the plate/registration in question number dead.

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots. You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them. To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No. Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV. I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.

Does any state actually enforce this though? I've seen a substantial number of license plates (even Massachusetts) at pawn shops over the years. They're fairly easy to get.

In other words, it's a badge of longevity and deep roots. You can't get them anymore, you can't sell them, and you had to have been here 25 years ago to have them. To some people this is a status symbol.

Does the registration have to have been kept continually the whole time? My parents still have their green MA plates sitting in a box in their garage for sentimental value but they haven't lived in Massachusetts since those plates were the current design. Would they in theory be able to use them again if they moved back to MA?

No. Actually, they should have turned their plate back in to the RMV. I'm surprised their insurance company didn't verify this before cancelling the policy.

Does any state actually enforce this though? I've seen a substantial number of license plates (even Massachusetts) at pawn shops over the years. They're fairly easy to get.

In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit.

When I changed from a standard MA plate to a charity MA plate, they instructed me to NOT return the plates and destroy them. I've kept them in the event that they were wrong, but they haven't come after me yet and it's been 4 years! I don't know if that's different when you leave the state...

I have twice had to return the plates before the insurance company would remove one of the vehicles off my insurance policy. Until they could verify the plates were returned to the RMV, they would not remove the vehicle from my policy and continued to charge.

I have twice had to return the plates before the insurance company would remove one of the vehicles off my insurance policy. Until they could verify the plates were returned to the RMV, they would not remove the vehicle from my policy and continued to charge.

I have an uninsured (and thus undriven, of course) car with plates sitting out back until it gets exempt from emissions come January. The insurance company gladly let it go.

When I changed from a standard MA plate to a charity MA plate, they instructed me to NOT return the plates and destroy them. I've kept them in the event that they were wrong, but they haven't come after me yet and it's been 4 years! I don't know if that's different when you leave the state...

When I changed from my standard plate to my ham radio plates, the RMV specifically requested that I return the standard plate when I picked up the new plates.

I love reading about how obsessive states are over license plates. Just do what most states do, when the registration runs out, the plate is "dead" and flagged as unregistered. As for those low numbered plates, NJ has a system built around political connections, the "courtesy" plate. You can only get a tag with 3 letters and one number if you have permission from someone in state government.

In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit.

I still have my green on white plate from when I moved from Mass. to N.Y. in 1990 and I've never been tapped for any excise tax.

Move back to Mass. and try to register a car.

Makes sense. Massachusetts has no means of enforcing anything like this against people who no longer have any ties to the state. I suspect a lot of the plates you find in collections came from people who moved out of MA with no intention of ever returning and did not bother to cancel their registration or turn in their plates because they would have gained nothing by doing so.

As for those low numbered plates, NJ has a system built around political connections, the "courtesy" plate. You can only get a tag with 3 letters and one number if you have permission from someone in state government.

The three letters have significance. The first is the county code from where the senator resides that "sponsored" the registrant. The second and thrid letters are the registrants initials. Also, courtesies are only numbered 1-20. The regular format is in an ABC 1 format, there's also a reverse format; 1 ABC.

As far as Trenton is concerned, they are merely vanity plates. However, they do serve a purpose with police. Basically the registrant is saying, "Don't fuck with me, I have political connections. Go bother someone else."

In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit.

I still have my green on white plate from when I moved from Mass. to N.Y. in 1990 and I've never been tapped for any excise tax.

Move back to Mass. and try to register a car.

Makes sense. Massachusetts has no means of enforcing anything like this against people who no longer have any ties to the state. I suspect a lot of the plates you find in collections came from people who moved out of MA with no intention of ever returning and did not bother to cancel their registration or turn in their plates because they would have gained nothing by doing so.

When I moved from Massachusetts to New York, I had no idea that my plates had to be turned in. We canceled insurance, registered the cars in New York, and put the Mass plates up on the wall of the new garage. Months later, I was contacted by a collection agency about overdue excise tax. Somehow the government who wanted the tax money wasn't able to find me, but the collection agency could. After many calls and letters, showing proof of insurance cancellation and registration in New York, and explaining that I never received any excise tax bill (the rest of my mail was forwarded by the USPS for a year or so, no idea why this one important piece would not have been), I was told there was nothing anyone could do. I ended up driving back to Massachusetts to turn in the old plates. I know I still had to pay the excise tax - it wasn't enough to fight any further but enough to be really annoying - but I think I eventually got them to waive the late fees.

As for those low numbered plates, NJ has a system built around political connections, the "courtesy" plate. You can only get a tag with 3 letters and one number if you have permission from someone in state government.

The three letters have significance. The first is the county code from where the senator resides that "sponsored" the registrant. The second and thrid letters are the registrants initials. Also, courtesies are only numbered 1-20. The regular format is in an ABC 1 format, there's also a reverse format; 1 ABC.

As far as Trenton is concerned, they are merely vanity plates. However, they do serve a purpose with police. Basically the registrant is saying, "Don't fuck with me, I have political connections. Go bother someone else."

There's a 9 ESQ living in my complex. I figured it was a personal plate saying he was a lawyer. OK, he has connections. That explains why he's such a fat asshole. (Note: He is both. I am not calling him an asshole for being fat, or vice versa.)

In Mass. you will continue being charged annual excise tax on the car unless you turn the plates in or file a lost/stolen/etc. affidavit.

I still have my green on white plate from when I moved from Mass. to N.Y. in 1990 and I've never been tapped for any excise tax.

Have you renewed the registration since then? Standard registrations are renewed every 2 years via a plate sticker. IIRC, the RMV likely considers a registration (& plate) dead several months (or even a year) after the registration expires. If the registration is dead/long since expired; it's no longer considered to be legally registered in MA, and hence, not subject to the excise tax.

Driving up MA 3 this morning toward the Braintree junction with I-93, I was treated to a view of some horrible new black graffiti on the diagrammatic BGS for I-93. How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Furthermore, why do these houligans risk their lives by climbing on a sign bridge over a very busy highway? Since when did overhead BGSs become the new canvass for vandalism? Whatever happened to the classic brick wall? I frequently see graffiti on the reverse side of BGSs so that the vandals have more liberty for their ugly gang tags.

This is where pipe gantry is advantageous...you don't have these losers climbing on the structures defacing property and risking their lives for nothing.

Furthermore, why do these houligans risk their lives by climbing on a sign bridge over a very busy highway? Since when did overhead BGSs become the new canvass for vandalism? Whatever happened to the classic brick wall? I frequently see graffiti on the reverse side of BGSs so that the vandals have more liberty for their ugly gang tags.

The point is to make it noticable. If hundreds of people drive down the highway, they are going to see the graffiti compared to if they tagged a random brick wall in a shithole section of a city.

Furthermore, why do these houligans risk their lives by climbing on a sign bridge over a very busy highway? Since when did overhead BGSs become the new canvass for vandalism? Whatever happened to the classic brick wall? I frequently see graffiti on the reverse side of BGSs so that the vandals have more liberty for their ugly gang tags.

The point is to make it noticable. If hundreds of people drive down the highway, they are going to see the graffiti compared to if they tagged a random brick wall in a shithole section of a city.

I have seen some on the side of the highway (on a wall or on some rocks), and that doesn't require going up dangerously.

Or even the "Speed Limit 155" sign (the 1 is in spray paint, and it has been there for years), or Rudolph noses on the "deer crossing" signs (since removed).

I've seen grafitti where someone tagged a speed limit sign on a sharp curve. The original speed limit was 35 but they changed it to 85. I've seen the "Rudolph nose" ones before too. There is also a pull-through sign on I-91 northbound near Hartford that had something tagged on it about 9/11..

Sadly, someone will have to die before they get the message that climbing on sign bridges is incredibly dangerous. Ironically, the graffiti (on both sides of the sign) says "Sense Lives." Apparently, Sense has 9 lives!

How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Honestly imho I hope they do neither as the graffiti does not obstruct the sign's message and the labor and expense is not justified considering the current condition of our roads as well as the pending state budget deficit. If you look at the state's history of deferring maintenance of bridge structural deficiencies then I just can't see spending money to fix something that is mostly aesthetic.

As for the potential argument that leaving it up will encourage others, I highly doubt there are many more people as brave as the person who climbed that gantry.

How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Honestly imho I hope they do neither as the graffiti does not obstruct the sign's message and the labor and expense is not justified considering the current condition of our roads as well as the pending state budget deficit. If you look at the state's history of deferring maintenance of bridge structural deficiencies then I just can't see spending money to fix something that is mostly aesthetic.

As for the potential argument that leaving it up will encourage others, I highly doubt there are many more people as brave as the person who climbed that gantry.

Cleaning graffiti is a minimal expense compared to replacing a single bridge. They will clean it.

Driving up MA 3 this morning toward the Braintree junction with I-93, I was treated to a view of some horrible new black graffiti on the diagrammatic BGS for I-93. How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Furthermore, why do these houligans risk their lives by climbing on a sign bridge over a very busy highway? Since when did overhead BGSs become the new canvass for vandalism? Whatever happened to the classic brick wall? I frequently see graffiti on the reverse side of BGSs so that the vandals have more liberty for their ugly gang tags.

This is where pipe gantry is advantageous...you don't have these losers climbing on the structures defacing property and risking their lives for nothing.

The same moron(s) also hit a pair of BGS on the ramp from Burgin Parkway to MA 3 SB.

How long do you think it will take MassDOT to clean this up or replace the sign altogether?

Honestly imho I hope they do neither as the graffiti does not obstruct the sign's message and the labor and expense is not justified considering the current condition of our roads as well as the pending state budget deficit. If you look at the state's history of deferring maintenance of bridge structural deficiencies then I just can't see spending money to fix something that is mostly aesthetic.

As for the potential argument that leaving it up will encourage others, I highly doubt there are many more people as brave as the person who climbed that gantry.

So, if somebody were to commit an act of criminal vandalism by tagging your property, would you be content to leave it there under your premise of "what's the harm?"

Cleaning graffiti is a minimal expense compared to replacing a single bridge. They will clean it.

The OP asked if the state would clean or replace, and I agree cleaning is the better option.

I was not referring to bridge replacements but bridge maintenance (deck repair, substructure repair, etc.) as well as roadway maintenance (potholes, drainage). This type of basic maintenance is deferred and underfunded statewide. While this sign is in a high visibility location and may receive attention, there are countless examples of graffiti on bridges and signs throughout the state that remains uncleaned. It just isn't a priority.

So, if somebody were to commit an act of criminal vandalism by tagging your property, would you be content to leave it there under your premise of "what's the harm?"

If my property consisted of thousands of similarly tagged items (road signs) and my home was in structural decay in need of repairs and my bank account was in the negative and I was living off credit, then yes sir you bet I would. And I'm sure you would too. Its about priorities. Considering the amount of graffiti out there between bridges, signs, etc. that the state leaves up, it seems they agree. People defer maintenance on their homes and cars all the time. If you have a major dent or scratch on your automobile (or if someone keys your car) and it needs a new head gasket at the same time, which repair would you prioritize?

As long as there is no vulgarity or racial slur that is visible to the public, then I just can't justify cleaning every instance of graffiti on a sign or highway overpass. What happens when the graffiti artist strikes again? Do we just engage in a cat and mouse game and throw more money at it? Unless we can develop a way of preventing people from climbing these bridges and signs, then its a game we cannot and will not ever win.

Unless we can develop a way of preventing people from climbing these bridges and signs, then its a game we cannot and will not ever win.

This is why pipe gantry should be mandatory, or a pipe stem with the truss attachment on top. I was disappointed to see so many sign bridges replaced in MA that still have the truss structure. You're just inviting this problem.

We can only hope the idiot that defaced the now more than 1 signs in the Braintree Junction area gets caught in the act, with a nice bill from MassDOT for the cleanup.

As long as there is no vulgarity or racial slur that is visible to the public, then I just can't justify cleaning every instance of graffiti on a sign or highway overpass. What happens when the graffiti artist strikes again? Do we just engage in a cat and mouse game and throw more money at it? Unless we can develop a way of preventing people from climbing these bridges and signs, then its a game we cannot and will not ever win.

Leaving graffiti alone lets it feed on itself. Remember what happened to the NYC subways in the 1970's and 1980's when the MTA decided it didn't have the money to clean it up. Subway cars ended up being wall-to-wall-to-ceiling-to-floor graffiti, rendering the maps, ads and destination signs unusable and ignoring the fact that the system's users had to just grin (more like grimace) and bear it. Users had the feeling they were traveling in the midst of filth.

When graffiti is promptly removed, the graffiti artists move on and deface something else. Seldom if ever do they target the same edifices more than once. This has been proven again and again by the experiences of most large cities.

When graffiti is promptly removed, the graffiti artists move on and deface something else. Seldom if ever do they target the same edifices more than once. This has been proven again and again by the experiences of most large cities.

Not always. The state has twice sandblasted/painted the large RR bridge over I-190 in Worcester. Each time it would last about 3-6 months, then overnight you have a nice wall of graffiti. I think they (the state) have given up as it has been most recently defaced for about two years.

Even if the original artist doesn't return, there is always a new Picasso waiting in the wings. With so many different gangs each with their own tag all it takes is a newbie looking to make a name for himself.

I saw the graffiti the other morning, and meant to have a look this am, but my attention was diverted by a stalled semi in the left lane, under the sign. I take that ramp every morning on my way to work to Rt. 3 South.

Spooky, I noticed that too. At least MassDOT knows it's there and hopefully they will finish the job. The Burgin Parkway signage is going to be tougher to clean as the vandals hit the route shields and the text. At least on the diagrammatic, they hit mainly the dead green space. Even though they clean the signs, there is still going to be the "scarring" from the original damage. It's just a shame considering how much $$ has been spent on the sign replacements. Why couldn't the vandals have targeted the forgotten BGS on the Burgin Pkwy ramps from the 80s? At least they could have had a reason to finally replace them!

I think building a new neighborhood in the core of the city that demands this much automobile access was dumb, and calculated (desirable demographics don't ride any Silver Line). Serves them right to have all that congestion.

The Haul Road won't be enough anyway, and with no ways off between 93 and the convention center, will be backed up that whole way before long.

Living South of Boston and not affected by the Callahan Tunnel closure, I thoroughly enjoyed using the "restricted" South Boston Bypass Road when the detour was in place. I got into South Boston in a matter of minutes! It was glorious...it was like sneaking into the "Secret Garden!" I am completely in favor of them opening the road to everyone. Yes, I understand that once it becomes popular, it will become more congested. But at least it's a direct way into South Boston from the South Shore. The off-ramp orgy to get into the same neighborhood via Exit 20 is much more time consuming.

I have been through the Rt. 3 interchange by Quincy Adams since Tuesday, either the sign bridge was cleaned, or the signs were replaced. No evidence of graffiti at all .Still puzzled how any one could even stay up there since there is no cat-walk.

I noticed yesterday that the Burgin Pkwy signs are immaculate now. They did a much better job cleaning those than they did the Exit 20 diagrammatic on Route 3, which has cleaning scars on it. It seems like a rather quick turnaround to completely replace the signs altogether, but I am not familiar with the ease of cleaning paint off the new-generation BGSs.

I noticed yesterday that the Burgin Pkwy signs are immaculate now. They did a much better job cleaning those than they did the Exit 20 diagrammatic on Route 3, which has cleaning scars on it. It seems like a rather quick turnaround to completely replace the signs altogether, but I am not familiar with the ease of cleaning paint off the new-generation BGSs.

It's my understanding that the newer high intensity prismatic sheetings (Type VIII or better), which the Exit 20 diagrammatic was fabricated from, are more vunerable to damage from cleaning grafitti (scars) than the older high intensity sheeting (Type III), which the older Burgin Parkway signs were fabricated from, is. Also, from the photos I've seen, it appears that the tagging on the diagrammatic sign was more complex than on the Burgin Parkway signs.

This was their preferred alt:http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/34/docs/EA_ENF/Section5_ProjectAlternatives.pdf

Also, any updates on the MA-18 project by US-6? GSV showed reconstruction around 2012. and these beauties on US-6?https://www.google.com/maps/@41.637635,-70.922244,3a,75y,232.19h,96.57t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa0YMIjaO6xAcCOQOO1XJaw!2e0

^ I-195 Seekonk to Dartmouth sign replacement project, which also includes the section of MA 24 between the Rhode Island line and I-195, is currently under construction. However, installing the major ground-mounted and overhead signs and structures won't start until mid-spring of this year. Contractor is Liddell Brothers, whose SOP on other projects has been to wait for the majority of sign panels and supports/structures to be fabricated before they begin installation. A further complication is that little foundation work has been doen to date because of the severe winter we've had here.

Does MASS DOT put any plans online? Some of their project pages have none. Kinda surprised. it's public knowledge isn't it? While all projects seem to be online in regards to their status. I can't seem to find downloadable pdf plans for them.

Does MASS DOT put any plans online? Some of their project pages have none. Kinda surprised. it's public knowledge isn't it? While all projects seem to be online in regards to their status. I can't seem to find downloadable pdf plans for them.

According to http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12961.0, roadman posted:

MassDOT does not currently post signing plans on-line, however, you can request plans for specific projects after the project has been awarded to a contractor. A listing of current MassDOT design and construction projects, which can be sorted by community, District office, status, or other, is available at http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/projectsRoot&sid=wrapper&iid=http://www.mhd.state.ma.us//ProjectInfo/

You can request plans from the Boston HQ Plans and Records Office - contact information is at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/PlansRecords.aspx

Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly). However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.

In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request. The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them. If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests. What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

I understand how these things work, but charging someone $50 for a copy of a 50-page document implies a ridiculous labor rate of something like $100+ per hour.

I also understand the desire to spare valuable employee time from frivolous requests. I have known my share of people who have made requests of this type practically a lifestyle choice. But the flipside of this is the tacit decision that requests by people without the means to spend at this rate are by nature frivolous, which does impose a certain judgment on the request even if it doesn't inquire about motivation.

"Fair" is a subjective term, and there are arguments on both sides, which is why the .pdf is a wonderful thing for everyone involved.

Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly). However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.

In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request. The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them. If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests. What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

Fair may be relative when the MBTA wants to charge $1500 to get a days worth of e-mails between 2 employees at the agency.

Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly). However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.

In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request. The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them. If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests. What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

Fair may be relative when the MBTA wants to charge $1500 to get a days worth of e-mails between 2 employees at the agency.

When those two employees are the Director of Railroad Operations and the General Manager of Keolis, the company running the commuter rail, I could see how they could arrive at that price to gather the documents. And shame on the media for submitting such a vague request (any and all correspondence) in the first place.

Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly). However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.

In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request. The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them. If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests. What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

Fair may be relative when the MBTA wants to charge $1500 to get a days worth of e-mails between 2 employees at the agency.

When those two employees are the Director of Railroad Operations and the General Manager of Keolis, the company running the commuter rail, I could see how they could arrive at that price to gather the documents. And shame on the media for submitting such a vague request (any and all correspondence) in the first place.

The one I speak of is Beverly Johnson (soon to not be head of MBTA) and Joe Pesaturo (the Baghdad Bob of the MBTA), which Fox25 asked for. It does not cost that much to copy a bunch of e-mails and put them into a PDF. Hell, this same state charged a state rep $800 to get the EBT card balances exceeding $1000 to be put onto a 1 page piece of paper.

Unless we're talking very large format, $1.00 is borderline extortionate (and FOIA-unfriendly). However, it's mostly a dead point since most people are gonna get it on .pdf anyway.

In Massachusetts at least, when granting an FOIA request, the agency is allowed to charge the applicant with both the time, which is based on the salary of the lowest grade employee knowlegeable enough to fufill the request, and a nominal cost for printing any copies of documents required to fufill the request. The applicant is notified of these charges before the information is sent to them. If they choose not to pay, they don't get the information.

This system is entirely fair, as it is designed to discourage frivilous requests. What the agency cannot do is inquire as to why the information is being requested.

Fair may be relative when the MBTA wants to charge $1500 to get a days worth of e-mails between 2 employees at the agency.

When those two employees are the Director of Railroad Operations and the General Manager of Keolis, the company running the commuter rail, I could see how they could arrive at that price to gather the documents. And shame on the media for submitting such a vague request (any and all correspondence) in the first place.

The one I speak of is Beverly Johnson (soon to not be head of MBTA) and Joe Pesaturo (the Baghdad Bob of the MBTA), which Fox25 asked for. It does not cost that much to copy a bunch of e-mails and put them into a PDF. Hell, this same state charged a state rep $800 to get the EBT card balances exceeding $1000 to be put onto a 1 page piece of paper.

As I expalined, the cost is not so much in reproducing the documents, but in the salaries of the "lowest paid knowlegeable person". In the case of e-mails that Scott and Pesaturo personally generated, it would be the salaries of Scott and Pesaturo.

With respect, I believe the First Amendment does not justifiy Faux News conducting another of its unspecified fishing expeditions at the taxpayers time or expense. But I presume you've never been directed to respond to FOIA requests as part of your job.

Fox 25 is owned by Cox Communications out of San Francisco, so enough with the "Faux News" meme. I don't see any of the other stations trying to get this info. Media requesting this stuff has a tad bit more of caché than some anti-gov't nerd with too much time on his hand, and yes I do sympathize with having to deal with those types of people.

If someone emails me asking for the latest traffic count report on a roadway, I just look it up and give it to them. Takes 30 seconds. Some people, however, insist on referring people to the FOIA process for any release of information, even when they're willing to give it. To me, that seems like unnecessary bureaucratic overhead wasting everyone's time, as the request then has to go through legal and gets bounced through a dozen departments and has accompanying forms. The purpose of FOIA was to force government agencies to share information that they were supposed to be sharing but weren't, not to keep a bunch of lawyers employed.

If someone emails me asking for the latest traffic count report on a roadway, I just look it up and give it to them. Takes 30 seconds. Some people, however, insist on referring people to the FOIA process for any release of information, even when they're willing to give it. To me, that seems like unnecessary bureaucratic overhead wasting everyone's time, as the request then has to go through legal and gets bounced through a dozen departments and has accompanying forms. The purpose of FOIA was to force government agencies to share information that they were supposed to be sharing but weren't, not to keep a bunch of lawyers employed.

Another question which I was reminded of by the "roundabout" warning sign in your pic - are Massachusetts' rotaries as they are called just traffic circles? They look safer than New Jersey's deathtraps, but they don't look as safe as roundabouts. Although, most of them are more circular in shape than New Jersey's circles.

The new little roundabouts are usually not signed as rotaries. Some similar smaller rotaries are, but they are not necessarily engineered as specifically as the modern roundabout.

Traffic in rotaries generally has the right of way - similar to roundabouts, different from NJ's circles - though there are some exceptions. Rotaries are generally much larger than roundabouts, sometimes measured in tenths of a mile (the one at 2/2A/119 is about 0.2 miles around), and often do not have a round shape. Similar to traffic circles, rotaries do not maintain lane balances of incoming roads, so you have to guess at where your car should be laterally relative to other cars, and there's no rule as to whether someone in a "left lane" can exit at a given spoke. Another similarity to traffic circles is the unwritten rules of how it functions - all of the locals will know how to drive the rotary properly, but if you try to drive it like a roundabout, you'll be cut off at some point. Rotaries are generally much better signed than NJ's circles, on par with (though different than) modern roundabouts. Finally, rotary spokes do not have to enter "left of" the center, which is a common design rule with roundabouts - rotary spokes can be at shallower angles like traffic circles.

When did Massachusetts switch from the small exit tabs that look like they are built into the bigger part of the sign to the bigger tabs with a border between the tab and the main sign, (similar to how New Hampshire does it)

When did Massachusetts switch from the small exit tabs that look like they are built into the bigger part of the sign to the bigger tabs with a border between the tab and the main sign, (similar to how New Hampshire does it)

It was around 2002-2003, when the Big Dig was being completed. The first signs with the new style were put up as part of the Big Dig. However, there was still some overlap depending on signing contracts. For example, just after the Big Dig, the new style of signs were put up on I-495 in southern Mass. However, at the same time, the signs put up for the US-44 extension and several other isolated projects used the old style for several more years.

When did Massachusetts switch from the small exit tabs that look like they are built into the bigger part of the sign to the bigger tabs with a border between the tab and the main sign, (similar to how New Hampshire does it)

Actually, the Big Dig sign design had no bearing on MassHighway's decision to switch to the larger exit tabs on their signs. When the 1978 MUTCD was issued, one of the changes was to go from an 18 inch high exit tab to a 24 inch high one. At the time, MassDPW convinced FHWA that omitting the border underneath the exit tab and overlapping the numerals onto the main sign panel (often referred to as the "integral exit tab" design) was an acceptable alternative to requiring a fully separate exit tab. The rationale given at the time to retain the 18 inch design with modifications instead of going to the 24 inch height was to minimize the need for support changes when signs were updated in the future.

About the time the 2003 MUTCD was issued, which called for 30 inch high exit tabs, MassHighway had a handful of instances where, due to fabrication errors that were not caught before installation, signs for some left side exits were placed with right-justified tabs. Because of the omitted border and the overlapping numerals, fixing this problem was more involved than just moving the tab to the opposite side of the panel.

As a result of the 2003 MUTCD changes, and in light of the problems with incorrectly fabricated signs, MassHighway made the decision to forego the "integral exit tab" design in favor of the current practice. The first signs to be designed and fabricated to this new standard were on I-95 at the "Task A" interchange with Route 128 in Peabody, and on Route 140 between Taunton and New Bedford.

I heard that Massachusetts was going to change it's exit numbers to mileage-based in the near future. Is this accurate, or did I mishear about that?

The contract for exit number conversion is scheduled to be advertised for bids in September. It will involve changing exit numbers on most routes through a blanket conversion with overlays. The sole exception is the MassPike - I-90, as those numbers will be changed when the signs are replaced under the pending West Stockbridge to Auburn (advertised, bid opening in September) and Auburn to Boston (to be advertised in October) projects.

I heard that Massachusetts was going to change it's exit numbers to mileage-based in the near future. Is this accurate, or did I mishear about that?

The contract for exit number conversion is scheduled to be advertised for bids in Spetember. It will involve chainging exit numbers on most routes through a blanket conversion with overlays. The sole exception is the MassPike - I-90, as those numbers will be changed when the signs are replaced under the pending West Stockbridge to Auburn (advertised, bid opening in September) and Auburn to Boston (to be advertised in October) projects.

Very interesting. If the MassPike signs are let as separate contracts, wouldn't that suggest that there could be a period where some numbers are changed and some aren't? I suppose that is inevitable though even if it were one contract.

The plan for the MassPike contracts is to coordinate the actual sign installation so this phase of the work is done one interchange at a time. Yes, there will be a point where some interchanges have the new numbers while others continue to have the old ones. However, this will also be the case (although to a lesser degree) with the number conversions on all other routes. ALso note that MassDOT's original longer term "route by route" plan has been changed to a short term "blanket" replacement plan (similar to PA) - this was requested by FHWA as a condition of receiving Federal money for the conversions.

Additionally, the exit numbering contract will have a large PR coordination effort as part of the Contractor's work.

Here's an unofficial list (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/intexits.html) of possible exit number changes for MA Interstate & state highways made by one of users from this site.

The official ones shouldn't be too far off what's listed in the above-link.

It will be interesting to see how the actual numbers do compare with the ones in the lists. I tried not to be too strict in adhering to mileposts when assigning numbers if I thought drivers would benefit by keeping it simpler. For example at the southern end of I-93, both current Exits 1 (SB) and 2 could be assigned to milepost 1 (assuming MassDOT isn't going to be using Exit 0), but I figured it would be easier to keep the exits as is rather than a southbound driver seeing Exits 1D, 1C, 1B and 1A. And, though my list may say differently, you could keep the I-93 exit numbers as is between I-95 and Exit 12 without causing too much driver confusion.

And, though my list may say differently, you could keep the I-93 exit numbers as is between I-95 and Exit 12 without causing too much driver confusion.

IMHO, that's what will likely happen there. Similar was done with I-95 in PA during its conversion circa 2000 (the first 10 exits from the DE state line to the first PA 291 exit did not have their numbers changed).

IMHO, once CT finally fully changes over; the first 9 interchanges along I-84 (from the NY state line eastward) probably won't change either.

OTOH and back to MA; exit numbers along the Lowell Connector could indeed become alphabet soup.

The plan for the MassPike contracts is to coordinate the actual sign installation so this phase of the work is done one interchange at a time. Yes, there will be a point where some interchanges have the new numbers while others continue to have the old ones. However, this will also be the case (although to a lesser degree) with the number conversions on all other routes. ALso note that MassDOT's original longer term "route by route" plan has been changed to a short term "blanket" replacement plan (similar to PA) - this was requested by FHWA as a condition of receiving Federal money for the conversions.

Additionally, the exit numbering contract will have a large PR coordination effort as part of the Contractor's work.

It sounds like, under this short-term blanket plan, numbers will be changed on existing signs for routes scheduled for sign replacement in the next few years. In particular, US 6 /Mid-Cape Highway in 2016, MA 24 north of I-195 in 2016/17, and I-95 south of MA 128 in 2018. Couldn't the FHWA be convinced to wait to switch those routes when the new signs were put up?

I was on Route 6 today, and wondered if anyone knows when the nifty travel time signs out there will make it to the rest of the state. These seem to have been in discussion and development for a long time.

I was on Route 6 today, and wondered if anyone knows when the nifty travel time signs out there will make it to the rest of the state. These seem to have been in discussion and development for a long time.

The project (MassDOT Project #607422) to expand the travel time sign system to other Interstates and freeways statewide is presently under construction - all signs are expected to be installed and operational by mid to late fall of 2015.

Once the permanent "hybrid" signs are in place, the portable CMS panels currently conveying this information on certain routes (I-93, MassPike) will be removed.

MassDOT has released its Draft 2016-2019 STIP document: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/STIP/DraftSTIP2016_2019.pdf (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/STIP/DraftSTIP2016_2019.pdf)

Among the projects listed for FY 2016 are, as Roadman indicated above, the "Statewide-Conversion of Interstate and Freeway Exit Numbers to Milepost-Based" Project 608024, "Route 6 Sign Upgrades, Sandwich to Orleans" Project 605367 and Raynham to Bolton, Guide and Traffic Sign Replacement on I-495, Project 606620. The conversion project, 608024, is estimated to cost $2 Million in 2016 with the feds contributing $1.8 million of it ($4 million has already been committed in 2015, according to the 2015-2018 TIP). For comparison, the US 6 project is estimated at $4.1 Million, $3.7 Million in Federal funds and the I-495 project $6 Million, $5.4 Million in Federal funding.

MA 24 Sign Replacement from Randolph to Fall River is scheduled for FY 2017 (Project 607916) while FY 2018 has sign replacement projects for I-495 from Bolton to Lowell (Project 607919) and I-290 from Auburn to Worcester (Project 607919) scheduled, along with I-95 from Attleboro to Canton (Project 608204). Upgrading I-95 signage from Reading to Peabody is to occur in FY 2019 (Project 608205) along with upgrading signage on US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers (Project 608206) (will that include exit numbers?) and I-495 from Haverhill to Amesbury (what about between Lowell and Haverhill?) (Project 608187).

Does anyone know if there any widening projects planned or proposed for the Cape? Obviously it's very hard to do now because of the development, but I'd be interested to see if they ever even thought about widening roads such as MA 28 or even US 6.

Does anyone know if there any widening projects planned or proposed for the Cape? Obviously it's very hard to do now because of the development, but I'd be interested to see if they ever even thought about widening roads such as MA 28 or even US 6.

I can't imagine MA 28 would ever be widened. Too many mini-golf courses would have to be taken out. :D

Does anyone know if there any widening projects planned or proposed for the Cape? Obviously it's very hard to do now because of the development, but I'd be interested to see if they ever even thought about widening roads such as MA 28 or even US 6.

I don't know anything about it, but merely talking out of my ass I would guess that between wetlands, the aquifer, and the Cape Cod Commission, it's got to be extra hard to widen Route 6. It's also fairly pointless—I don't usually see bad traffic on the super-2 section other than at the lane drop (mitigating which doesn't warrant 12 additional lane-miles each way). North of the rotary I could see a passing lane or two, but most of the problems there are just due to a narrow spit being very popular to visit. At the Sagamore there is no sense building lanes to simply store traffic waiting to cross a narrow bridge (and there's another thread alread on that situation).

Plus, the Cape is in some ways an overblown competitor for highway dollars. It's the state's biggest tourist region, but for four months a year, after which it's another semi-rural county suffering from economic depression, rampant substance abuse, brain drain, and nature's guaranteed-successful plan to eliminate it altogether. Not exactly a growth area.

I noticed they put up one of those new travel time signs that MassDOT has been installing on the Cape on I-195 east in Swansea just before the large construction zone. This one was orange though, is this due to it being temporary because of the road work zone?

I noticed they put up one of those new travel time signs that MassDOT has been installing on the Cape on I-195 east in Swansea just before the large construction zone. This one was orange though, is this due to it being temporary because of the road work zone?

Correct. Once the Route 79 project is completed, the travel time signs on I-195 and Route 24 will be converted to standard white on green travel time signs. My spies tell me that the revised signs will likely have different destinations than those on the current signs, which indicate routes and destinations relevant to the Route 79 project, though.

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but when the mileage based exit numbers are installed, will I-395 and I-290 be treated as two separate routes? Or will mileage on both of them start from the state line as is currently the case with the exit numbers?

I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but when the mileage based exit numbers are installed, will I-395 and I-290 be treated as two separate routes? Or will mileage on both of them start from the state line as is currently the case with the exit numbers?

As the mile merkers reset at the I-395/I-290 divide, the current plan is for I-395 and I-290 to be treated as separate routes for the exit numbers.

along with upgrading signage on US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers (Project 608206) (will that include exit numbers?)

Somehow, I don't think that US 1 will be getting its own set of exit numbers but if it did (a la limited-access stretches of MA 2); such would only be for the Northeast Expressway (Chelsea to Revere/Saugus) stretch. North of there (to the Danvers/Topsfield line), US 1 is a Jersey-type, arterial highway. While highways of that ilk have interchanges; they're not typically numbered.

Weren't those signs already replaced not too long ago (less than 10 years)? Such can't be just for exit number conversions.

Most on the signs on I-95 from Reading to Peabody were last updated in 1999 and 2000. The signs on I-95 north at the Lynnfield/Peabody line for the Route 128 split were replaced in 2006 and will be retained as part of the new project.

Quote

Somehow, I don't think that US 1 will be getting its own set of exit numbers but if it did (a la limited-access stretches of MA 2); such would only be for the Northeast Expressway (Chelsea to Revere/Saugus) stretch. North of there (to the Danvers/Topsfield line), US 1 is a Jersey-type, arterial highway. While highways of that ilk have interchanges; they're not typically numbered.

US 1 between Chelsea and the Danvers/Topsfield line will not be getting exit numbers as part of either the exit renumbering project or the eventual sign replacement.

While not yet on the MassDOT website, the Saturday Boston Globe had their weekly public notice of upcoming Highway Division Proposals which this week included the ad for the project "Exit Signage Conversion to Milepost-based Numbering System along various Interstates, Routes, and the Lowell Connector (608024)" Project Value $2.08 Million. The bids are to be opened on November 17.

QUESTION: Do MA 3 and US 3 share a mileage log, or does US 3 reset the mileage log in Cambridge when the designation changes? Just curious for the eventual mileage-based exit numbering...

According to Despite MassDOT's Route Log, which implies that US 3 and MA 3 have separate mileposting unless you look at the data closely enough, the mileposting is continuous for both the MA and US sections for Route 3. So the new exit numbers on each route will notindeed be related. Of course, MA 3 will use the new I-93 exit numbers north of Braintree.

While not yet on the MassDOT website, the Saturday Boston Globe had their weekly public notice of upcoming Highway Division Proposals which this week included the ad for the project "Exit Signage Conversion to Milepost-based Numbering System along various Interstates, Routes, and the Lowell Connector (608024)" Project Value $2.08 Million. The bids are to be opened on November 17.

We knew this was coming within the next year or two, so not a shock. Glad to see it's actually moving forward.

QUESTION: Do MA 3 and US 3 share a mileage log, or does US 3 reset the mileage log in Cambridge when the designation changes? Just curious for the eventual mileage-based exit numbering...

According to MassDOT's Route Log, US 3 and MA 3 have separate mileposting. So the new exit numbers on each route will not be related. Of course, MA 3 will use the new I-93 exit numbers north of Braintree.

QUESTION: Do MA 3 and US 3 share a mileage log, or does US 3 reset the mileage log in Cambridge when the designation changes? Just curious for the eventual mileage-based exit numbering...

According to MassDOT's Route Log, US 3 and MA 3 have separate mileposting. So the new exit numbers on each route will not be related. Of course, MA 3 will use the new I-93 exit numbers north of Braintree.

While not yet on the MassDOT website, the Saturday Boston Globe had their weekly public notice of upcoming Highway Division Proposals which this week included the ad for the project "Exit Signage Conversion to Milepost-based Numbering System along various Interstates, Routes, and the Lowell Connector (608024)" Project Value $2.08 Million. The bids are to be opened on November 17.

We knew this was coming within the next year or two, so not a shock. Glad to see it's actually moving forward.

The Project Bid Information page for the contract is now online, so far it only features a general contractor notice:https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005477&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005477&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

Thanks. My bad for not reading the Route Log Info more closely - it's not the best site for getting info "at a glance". I've corrected my original post.

No problem. I have to wonder if the state's reasoning behind having the US/MA 3 mile markers continuous was for location purposes. If the mile markers on US 3 were reset to 0; it would be very possible to a duplicate set of mile markers (and soon interchange numbers) along MA 3 in the South Shore and US 3 north of I-95.

Thanks. My bad for not reading the Route Log Info more closely - it's not the best site for getting info "at a glance". I've corrected my original post.

No problem. I have to wonder if the state's reasoning behind having the US/MA 3 mile markers continuous was for location purposes. If the mile markers on US 3 were reset to 0; it would be very possible to a duplicate set of mile markers (and soon interchange numbers) along MA 3 in the South Shore and US 3 north of I-95.

Also probably the same reason why exit numbers on US 3 were never changed from the "#25 is Route 128" model. Exits on MA 3 are from #1-20. If there was exit #1 on US 3, it could very well cause confusion.

Just another reason why US 3 and MA 3 should either be merged or segregated... I suggest I-89 for US 3 north of 128/95.

While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

I believe the new signage will also no longer have MA 12 on it, either, which makes me sad. I remember when it was I-290 / MA 12 / MA 52... *sigh*

While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

I believe the new signage will also no longer have MA 12 on it, either, which makes me sad. I remember when it was I-290 / MA 12 / MA 52... *sigh*

Yes, just I-290 and I-395, (and no reference to Auburn, both will be on auxiliary signage) as shown on this sign plan:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i90exit90sign.jpg)

While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

I believe the new signage will also no longer have MA 12 on it, either, which makes me sad. I remember when it was I-290 / MA 12 / MA 52... *sigh*

Yes, just I-290 and I-395, (and no reference to Auburn, both will be on auxiliary signage) as shown on this sign plan:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i90exit90sign.jpg)

Are these sign plans unavailable for public download? They'd be fun to skim through.

Are these sign plans unavailable for public download? They'd be fun to skim through.

If not, are hyper-interested people like us the reason why?

I got the above plan from an addendum to the contract posted on the project's bid page. MassDOT contract plans typically are made available to the public once the project gets awarded. Perhaps Roadman can tell us if that is now the case, or whether we have to wait for a while longer.

Are these sign plans unavailable for public download? They'd be fun to skim through.

If not, are hyper-interested people like us the reason why?

I got the above plan from an addendum to the contract posted on the project's bid page. MassDOT contract plans typically are made available to the public once the project gets awarded. Perhaps Roadman can tell us if that is now the case, or whether we have to wait for a while longer.

Are these sign plans unavailable for public download? They'd be fun to skim through.

If not, are hyper-interested people like us the reason why?

I got the above plan from an addendum to the contract posted on the project's bid page. MassDOT contract plans typically are made available to the public once the project gets awarded. Perhaps Roadman can tell us if that is now the case, or whether we have to wait for a while longer.

Me? I don't work for MassDOT. :D

@Rothman - He meant me. And to answer the question, MassDOT project plans are not available to the general public until after a project has been awarded to the winning contractor. Bids on 606619 West Stockbridge to Auburn were recently opened, so the project should be awarded shortly. You can then request plans from the MassDOT Plans and Records Office - https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/PlansRecords.aspx

BTW, it is unusual for copies of plan sheets to show up in the CommBuys listing for a project, except when an addendum involving plan changes is issued - a half sized copy of the changed plans are included to expedite the bidding process. My guess is that is a holdover from the pre-electronic universe days, when plans were paper sets.

What's the thinking in doing them by request rather than simply posting them? I'm curious for the same reason most of us are—I like plans—but it also seems like it would save a lot of labor in the long run.

What's the thinking in doing them by request rather than simply posting them? I'm curious for the same reason most of us areI like plansbut it also seems like it would save a lot of labor in the long run.

Frankly, I do not have an answer to that question. And, personally, I agree with you that plans should be posted on-line.

Per Roadman's suggestion, I submitted a comment regarding the absence of MA 12 shields on the proposed main interchange signs. My argument for keeping the MA 12 shields was because the ramps to MA 12 are not only part of the overall interchange but are the first ramps one encounters after exiting off the Pike (and after clearing the toll booths). Such was detailed on the I-90 signage thread.

I have since received a reply e-mail from the MassDOT District Three Feedback. Bold emphais added:

Quote from: Note: Actual names are intentionally not shown

Thank you for your recent e-mail to MassDOT Feedback regarding your concerns about the proposed replacement signs on Interstate 90 (MassPike) for the Interstate 295/395/MA Route 12 interchange in Auburn.

It was not practical to include destinations on Route 12 on the new overhead signs for I-295/I-395 while conforming to Federal signing guidelines. Therefore, a decision was made early in the project design process to relegate the Route 12 information to ground-mounted supplemental signs instead, and to not provide Route 12 shields on the overhead signs.

However, upon further review of this location, and in consideration of the unique nature of this interchange, we now agree that placing Route 12 shields on these new signs will benefit drivers using I-90. Accordingly, we will instruct our sign fabricator for the I-90 West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project to add the Route 12 shields to the new overhead signs on the I-90 mainline at this location.

Again, thank you for contacting us with your concerns. We appreciate your interest in MassDOT’s ongoing freeway sign replacement program, and in the Massachusetts state highway system.

Per Roadman's suggestion, I submitted a comment regarding the absence of MA 12 shields on the proposed main interchange signs. My argument for keeping the MA 12 shields was because the ramps to MA 12 are not only part of the overall interchange but are the first ramps one encounters after exiting off the Pike (and after clearing the toll booths). Such was detailed on the I-90 signage thread.

I have since received a reply e-mail from the MassDOT District Three Feedback. Bold emphais added:

Quote from: Note: Actual names are intentionally not shown

Thank you for your recent e-mail to MassDOT Feedback regarding your concerns about the proposed replacement signs on Interstate 90 (MassPike) for the Interstate 295/395/MA Route 12 interchange in Auburn.

It was not practical to include destinations on Route 12 on the new overhead signs for I-295/I-395 while conforming to Federal signing guidelines. Therefore, a decision was made early in the project design process to relegate the Route 12 information to ground-mounted supplemental signs instead, and to not provide Route 12 shields on the overhead signs.

However, upon further review of this location, and in consideration of the unique nature of this interchange, we now agree that placing Route 12 shields on these new signs will benefit drivers using I-90. Accordingly, we will instruct our sign fabricator for the I-90 West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project to add the Route 12 shields to the new overhead signs on the I-90 mainline at this location.

Again, thank you for contacting us with your concerns. We appreciate your interest in MassDOT’s ongoing freeway sign replacement program, and in the Massachusetts state highway system.

I hope they arrange the shields as 290/395/12. I hate the current 290/12/395 placement. The state shield seems so awkward in-between the two interstate shields.

One needs to keep in mind that the interchange was originally built for just MA 12 only; I-290 and subsequently I-395 (originally MA 52) came along later. So the BGS legends likely evolved from (the first one is just a guess):

EXIT 10 12 AuburnWorcester

to

EXIT 10 290 12 AuburnWorcester

to

EXIT 10290 12 52 AuburnWorcester

to

EXIT 10290 12 395 Auburn Worcester

Granted, the shield layouts should've been rearranged and an I-395 (old MA 52) destination should've been included when these 1990s-vintage BGS' were erected; but the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority simply carried over the older layout onto the newer panels.

While I am happy to hear that mileage-based exit numbers are coming very soon to the Mass Pike, I will be sad to see the one just posted in Auburn with the old pilgrim hat and the CT-style MA 33 outline shield westbound approaching Chicopee go away.

I believe the new signage will also no longer have MA 12 on it, either, which makes me sad. I remember when it was I-290 / MA 12 / MA 52... *sigh*

All this talk of 52 makes me realize that I can't remember if I ever considered 52 until the little bits of white corners were sticking out from under the "395" pasted atop "52" on these signs. My guess without looking it up is that this was 1984.

Traveled through the I-95 Add-A-Lane Project zone this afternoon. Whether it's official or not, traffic is now using the new fourth lane in both directions between MA 109 and Great Plain Ave. Here's a view northbound, the only remaining work seems to be the final lane striping:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95addalane102215b.jpg)

Southbound has still more work to do, but traffic is using the new lane, open or not:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95addalane102215h.jpg)

I have photos of progress along the final segment to be built through Needham on my I-95 photo page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)

QUESTION ABOUT THE NEW PADDLE SIGNS:We're starting to see the new generation paddle signs emerge. I haven't seen the smaller square affixed to the pole...did they do away with that? How are they going to handle intersections with left and right turns? Double large paddle signs?

QUESTION ABOUT THE NEW PADDLE SIGNS:We're starting to see the new generation paddle signs emerge. I haven't seen the smaller square affixed to the pole...did they do away with that? How are they going to handle intersections with left and right turns? Double large paddle signs?

Here's how such was recently done for I-95 exit signage along MA 113 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8156056,-70.9205792,3a,75y,123.09h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAtWBb27SWSY25sAkDZRiog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

I guess they're not going to wait for new sign contracts to change the numbering as there are instructions to overlay numbers on the existing 90's era BGS with the "depressed" exit tab.

Correct. Although the original plan was to integrate the exit renumbering into sign update projects as much as possible over a ten year period (i.e. only the newest signs would get overlays immediately), this changed when the Feds agreed to allow MassDOT to use Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to do the work. Now, all exit numbers in the state (excluding the Mass. Pike, which is having signs changed anyway) will be changed out - mostly through overlays - by late 2017/early 2018.

I was wondering how they were going to handle the "Formerly Exit XX" signage, but they are going to stay consistent with their prior practice. I believe the most recent exit renumbering was on MA 25, when they finally acknowledged I-195 as an exit. IIRC, the "Formerly Exit XX" signs are still up to this day, all these years later.

I was wondering how they were going to handle the "Formerly Exit XX" signage, but they are going to stay consistent with their prior practice. I believe the most recent exit renumbering was on MA 25, when they finally acknowledged I-195 as an exit. IIRC, the "Formerly Exit XX" signs are still up to this day, all these years later.

How many years are we talking about? On many PennDOT and PTC highways; there's still a bunch of those old OLD EXIT XX square signs remaining even after 15-16 years.

I was wondering how they were going to handle the "Formerly Exit XX" signage, but they are going to stay consistent with their prior practice. I believe the most recent exit renumbering was on MA 25, when they finally acknowledged I-195 as an exit. IIRC, the "Formerly Exit XX" signs are still up to this day, all these years later.

How many years are we talking about? On many PennDOT and PTC highways; there's still a bunch of those old OLD EXIT XX square signs remaining even after 15-16 years.

A bunch? There are few that aren't still in place. At this point, a lot of people on the roads never drove when the old numbers were in place.

Installation of AET equipment on the MassPike has begun. Footings for the toll gantries and the equipment sheds have been installed at the sites in Lee, Blandford, and Westfield. Probably farther east, too, but I haven't been that far east yet. I think the target date for implementation is still next summer.

Installation of AET equipment on the MassPike has begun. Footings for the toll gantries and the equipment sheds have been installed at the sites in Lee, Blandford, and Westfield. Probably farther east, too, but I haven't been that far east yet. I think the target date for implementation is still next summer.

Does anyone know what the schedule is for implementation of the new guide signage, and is it designed to correspond with the AET project (which I assume will need new signage anyway)?

Installation of AET equipment on the MassPike has begun. Footings for the toll gantries and the equipment sheds have been installed at the sites in Lee, Blandford, and Westfield. Probably farther east, too, but I haven't been that far east yet. I think the target date for implementation is still next summer.

Does anyone know what the schedule is for implementation of the new guide signage, and is it designed to correspond with the AET project (which I assume will need new signage anyway)?

Contractor for West Stockbridge to Auburn has been issued NTP. New BGS and support installation on this section should start mid to late Spring of 2016. The Auburn to Boston section is to be let for bids by late November. Given a likely NTP of Jaunary 2016, new BGS and support installation on this section should start mid to late Summer of 2016.

During the design of both projects, there has been extensive coordination with both the AET installation and the eventual legacy toll plaza demolition contracts. Giude signing that will be impacted by these other contracts has been retained under the signing work.

I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).

I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).

I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).

I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).

It's rumored that NH has also gotten FHWA permission to use Federal safety funds for exit number conversion, though I've yet to see any plans from NHDOT as to when or how the conversion will be implemented.

I think it's nice that MA is finally getting mileage-based exits after all those years! Now the guessing game is on as to which of the remaining sequential-numbering states will be the next to convert (CT, NH, NY, RI, VT).

I saw somewhere that Vermont is supposedly putting provisions for new numbers on their new signs. New York has nothing official, but US 15 got renumbered not too long ago and the previously-unnumbered Taconic is getting mile-based numbers.

As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Vermont does appear to be putting provisions for mile-based numbers on new signs, but who knows if/when they'll convert, since they're most of the way through a statewide signage rehab that went through prior to the 2009 MUTCD. There are new signs for most exits across all their freeways, all except a few on I-91 designed exclusively for sequential (and would need new tabs in a conversion). Based on an article I read, that appears to be the main stumbling block towards converting VT.

As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Makes you wonder how many roads will be "newly-numbered" in NY. My bet: Not many. I'm still surprised the Taconic's getting new numbers and wonder how the Regions justified that expense or what pushed them to do so.

I saw somewhere that Vermont is supposedly putting provisions for new numbers on their new signs.

News to me. Last time I emailed VTrans about it, they were intending to hold out as long as possible and put a request in for an extension...

The pictures were in shadyjay's photo posts a few months ago, though the picutures appear to have been removed.

This is the thing I was reading:

Quote

When is Vermont going to enter the 21st century and renumber our interstate exits by mile marker?

VTRANS: This is a story where timing is everything. Back in 2009, federal requirements were passed mandating that each state move to the new mileage-based exits, but we were right in the middle of replacing our signs to bring them up to current retro-reflectivity standards (very shiny). We'd already made all the signs, and it seemed wasteful to trash them, since they're supposed to last about 15 years.

Changing to the mileage-based numbering system is going to mean changing a lot of other things. If you're a business with an exit number in your name, or if you make tourist maps, you should be planning your letterhead order so that it runs out around 2020. VTrans plans to do a lot of work with the regional planning commissions and chambers of commerce on this front in the coming years in advance of the rollout, as it will be a culture shock to some.

As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Makes you wonder how many roads will be "newly-numbered" in NY. My bet: Not many. I'm still surprised the Taconic's getting new numbers and wonder how the Regions justified that expense or what pushed them to do so.

Might have something to do with the 2009 MUTCD stating that ALL freeways MUST have exit numbers.

As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Makes you wonder how many roads will be "newly-numbered" in NY. My bet: Not many. I'm still surprised the Taconic's getting new numbers and wonder how the Regions justified that expense or what pushed them to do so.

Might have something to do with the 2009 MUTCD stating that ALL freeways MUST have exit numbers.

If they wanted to, they could argue that Taconic is not a freeway, with a few remaining grade crossings and several RIROs that were former grade crossings. Exit numbers certainly help people find their way, so it's very welcome to have them on a rural, unlit freeway where unfamiliar travelers have no idea how far until their destination or how many exits to pass.

I saw somewhere that Vermont is supposedly putting provisions for new numbers on their new signs.

News to me. Last time I emailed VTrans about it, they were intending to hold out as long as possible and put a request in for an extension...

As there is no compliance date for exit number conversion (there was one in the 2007 NPA but it was deleted in the final 2009 MUTCD), all VT has to demonstrate to FHWA is that they have a plan for eventual conversion. Unless they're looking for Federal funding for the conversion (like MA got for their conversion project), the timeframe VT cites doesn't really matter to FHWA.

Requesting a waiver of the milepost numbering requirement won't work. Upon issuance of the Final Rule for the 2009 MUTCD, most of the "sequential number" states formally appealed the new requirement to FHWA. Their request was denied.

The most recent resigning project in VT, on I-91 from the Mass state line to just north of Exit 6 definitely left extra space in the exit tabs for double digit numbers. See this shot of NB Exit 6, which will become an exit in the 20s-30s "at some point in time". The "6" is definitely not centered, and other secondary BGSs left space for double digit exit numbers:

As far as I can discern, all newly-numbered roads in NY are/will be mile based, and US 15 got converted due to becoming I-99.

Makes you wonder how many roads will be "newly-numbered" in NY. My bet: Not many. I'm still surprised the Taconic's getting new numbers and wonder how the Regions justified that expense or what pushed them to do so.

Might have something to do with the 2009 MUTCD stating that ALL freeways MUST have exit numbers.

I was reading Wikipedia about MA Route 3A and found it interesting that MA considers both segments to be continuous even though the two are 20 miles apart. In addition one is an alternate for US 3 while the other is for MA 3.

Apparently MA considers the two to be concurrent with both MA and US 3 in Boston, even though not signed. So overall MA 3A is 97 miles long with 20 of them miles being silent.

I was reading Wikipedia about MA Route 3A and found it interesting that MA considers both segments to be continuous even though the two are 20 miles apart. In addition one is an alternate for US 3 while the other is for MA 3.

Apparently MA considers the two to be concurrent with both MA and US 3 in Boston, even though not signed. So overall MA 3A is 97 miles long with 20 of them miles being silent.

I was reading Wikipedia about MA Route 3A and found it interesting that MA considers both segments to be continuous even though the two are 20 miles apart. In addition one is an alternate for US 3 while the other is for MA 3.

Apparently MA considers the two to be concurrent with both MA and US 3 in Boston, even though not signed. So overall MA 3A is 97 miles long with 20 of them miles being silent.

This is also true of other Alternate routes in Massachusetts including 1A and 6A. As for 3A being an alternate of both US 3 and MA 3, the state doesn't consider US 3 and MA 3 to be seperate routes. So for example, under the new mile-based exit numbers project, the exits on the freeway portion of US 3 near the New Hampshire border will have numbers corresponding with the distance to Plymouth.

That will be interesting to see when they complete the numbering scheme.

I wonder though if US 6 and US 44 will have exit numbers on their freeway segments being so short. US 44, IMO, should as its not that hard to calculate being only 38 miles within the state. US 6 could use them still using the two lane mileage west of MA 3, but are they willing to spend $$$?

I wonder though if US 6 and US 44 will have exit numbers on their freeway segments being so short. US 44, IMO, should as its not that hard to calculate being only 38 miles within the state. US 6 could use them still using the two lane mileage west of MA 3, but are they willing to spend $$$?

US 6 will have the new milepost based numbers, US 44 will not. MassDOT decided not to apply numbers to any route currently without them. The exceptions being the MA 28 expressway on the Cape and the short MA 57 expressway west of Springfield.The future US 6 numbers are here: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us6exits.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us6exits.html)

Makes sense that short freeways without numbers should not get them from the financial standpoint. In reality it would really help even for the shortest freeways, but that is a different story right now.

Makes sense that short freeways without numbers should not get them from the financial standpoint. In reality it would really help even for the shortest freeways, but that is a different story right now.

To give them some credit, they are applying them to a couple of highways that didn't have them previously, which is more than I expected to be sure. US-44 might be made completely limited access between I-495 and MA-3 at some point (they are already going to replace the rotary at the west end of the Super-2), so they might wait on that. But I also saw in one of the comments that US-6 has a "very short" freeway segment which isn't true, the segment is quite sizable and has 13 interchanges.

I wonder why US 44 was not truncated to MA 3 at the freeway end? Considering that, according to GSV, the signage east of MA 3 on its original alignment is not all that good. Even from MA 3A you have only a small green sign on the SW corner of the intersection of US 44 and MA 3A, with a large "44" on it with its control cities beneath it, but no shields or even a "US" text. So I am guessing the state does not maintain the two routes inside Plymouth.

However, city or state maintained the section east of the freeway might as well be removed from the state and US route list.

Then you have St. Augustine where some will dispute that its the first sign of the white man in the new world, then others will say Jamestown. History has many firsts, but all like to touch the ground its made on.

There's also the unsuccessful Popham Colony in Maine that was founded at the same time as Jamestown. They had A LOT fewer deaths than Jamestown but after surviving one New England winter, they ran back to England.

Makes you wonder though how different the world would be today if they had stuck it out.

I wonder though if US 6 and US 44 will have exit numbers on their freeway segments being so short. US 44, IMO, should as its not that hard to calculate being only 38 miles within the state. US 6 could use them still using the two lane mileage west of MA 3, but are they willing to spend $$$?

US 6 will have the new milepost based numbers, US 44 will not. MassDOT decided not to apply numbers to any route currently without them. The exceptions being the MA 28 expressway on the Cape and the short MA 57 expressway west of Springfield.The future US 6 numbers are here: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us6exits.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us6exits.html)

Worth noting: the exit numbered intersections (Exits 9, 10 & 11) along MA 128 in Gloucester are slated to be eliminated once the mile-marker based exit tabs are erected.

Similar was mentioned on Facebook but I do not believe that such has been yet mentioned here (at least not on this thread until now); some interchanges (approaching key ramps) now have route shields painted on pavement per MUTCD Figure 3B-25.

The westbound I-90 lanes approaching the I-84 interchange now has such markings. It was commented on FB that a couple other interchanges elsewhere in the Bay State are now sporting such.____________________________________________

A recent (likely temporary) replacement sign for this 1970s-vintage BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5475731,-70.9365468,3a,75y,6.95h,82.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD4V_xWtXqreGLR3d8XLeFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along MA 128 has no been erected. I say temporary because such is small LGS similar to what one sees along the southern end of NJ 55 or the small Exit 24 sign along I-84 westbound in Waterbury, CT; it's about the size of a D8 LGS. It includes a small version of the exit tab (now right-justified, the old one was centered per older standards) but there's grey duct-tape with a 24 hand-written w/a black Sharpie marker next to the EXIT text.

One has to wonder whether the fabricator jumped the gun and placed the mile-marker based 40 (per contract documents discussed earlier) for the exit number instead of the current 24.

I'm guessing that the old BGS was damaged in a recent accident. I believe that this BGS may have been one of if not the last remaining old 1970s-vintage BGS along this stretch of 128 through Peabody, Danvers & Beverly. The others were either replaced as part of an overall construction project or match-in-kind replacement for damaged signs.

Unfortunately, I couldn't get a decent photo of the new small sign (the sun glare bleaches out the duct tape portion with the hand-drawn number)._____________________________________________

No photo of such but apparently the old-school NH-MAINE destination listings is still appearing on new sign (D6 Paddle) installations. Brand new replacement D6 LGS' at Bell Circle (MA 1A/16/60) in Revere still use the listing for its MA 60 westbound (To US 1) signage. Even more interesting is that the one new sign directing 1A northbounders to 60 west (via the rotary cut-through) still uses Saugus (such predated the 1978 MA 60 reroute to Bell Circle). All the other new 60 West signs use Malden along with NH-MAINE. The old overhead gantry w/BGS', mainly directed towards those coming from MA 16 eastbound, still remain.

At locations where previous twin-D6 Paddles were mounted on one post (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4094916,-71.0015466,3a,75y,259.7h,81.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sShc3aGgaAiiSH1RcxMKg4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); the replacements are now two separate D6 panels and posts erected next to each other (there's a few inches of spacing between the sign edges).

I guess that the advance-notice BGS for MA 110 will be on a separate cantilevered structure; so it won't block the displayed bridge name. On the old bridge, such was mounted on the camel hump truss itself.

I noticed today that MA DOT applied "green-out" to the graffiti-scar on the MA 3 diagrammatic for Exit 20. They had applied green-out to the auxiliary signs on the Burgin Pkwy on-ramps that also received the graffiti treatment, so I don't know why they didn't do this for this particular BGS from the start. The green-out doesn't look that great - but short of replacing the sign altogether, I don't know what more they could do to fix this eyesore.

I know it's not the best picture, as I was on a Concord Coach Lines bus in the second row. With that said, you may have noticed which bridge the southbound I-95 traffic was using. It wasn't like that on Thursday. :clap:

I know it's not the best picture, as I was on a Concord Coach Lines bus in the second row. With that said, you may have noticed which bridge the southbound I-95 traffic was using. It wasn't like that on Thursday. :clap:

Nice shot, and impressive work. They didn't dawdle. The old Whittier Bridge looks tired and small in that pic. A little sad to me—I will miss the "bell curve" flare out at the bottom—but not terribly since the new bridge is so nice.

I noticed this by Columbus Avenue in Springfield tonight. I think MassDOT covered up "Holyoke". :hmmm:

(http://i.imgur.com/iTRzCrL.jpg)

Yup. The covered destination is Holyoke. That might be an old contractor error, because of the one way sign. That ramp only leads to I-91 south, so the patch is correct, and what's under it is incorrect.

https://goo.gl/maps/6CLk5QSkP9yThat's the old sign. But it was correct, that is until the viaduct rehabilitation project. You could turn left onto Hall of Fame Ave (previously Columbus) and either directly onto 91 South or go down and make a u-turn under 91 back onto the other side for the State St ramp. However, the onramps from Union St and State St are being closed during construction, so the green out and adding South reflects the current configuration available.

Installation of AET equipment on the MassPike has begun. Footings for the toll gantries and the equipment sheds have been installed at the sites in Lee, Blandford, and Westfield. Probably farther east, too, but I haven't been that far east yet. I think the target date for implementation is still next summer.

I've seen equipment shelters, vertical gantry supports and repaved sections with sensors being installed near the State Police barracks and maintenance depot in Weston, and about a mile west of the current Allston/Brighton toll plaza. I also saw a crew from Verizon pulling fiber-optic cable near the equipment shelter at the latter location, with MassDOT people present, so I'd guess that's tied in with the AET project too.

1. The US 3 paving project from NH to route 128 is basically done. The road's all striped (finally). The good news is that the 128 South to US 3 ramp now adds a lane instead of merges on to the highway. In the past, the mailine road widened to all 3 lanes after the bridge that crossed 128, then the ramp would merge. This was dumb, since the road was just starting. Now US 3 N stays two lanes all the way from the bridge, and 128's ramp adds the third. However, the signage has not been updated to account for this; Yield and Merge signs are still standing and need to be replaced with Add Lane signs instead.

2. New signs for the Lowell Connector are waiting to be installed, they're sitting in the Industrial Drive loop ramp green areas. This means that the center-tab Exit 1N sign's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6088206,-71.3212347,3a,75y,213.88h,89.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVONRFrfMFA660EjIp7xPOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) days are numbered.

2. New signs for the Lowell Connector are waiting to be installed, they're sitting in the Industrial Drive loop ramp green areas. This means that the center-tab Exit 1N sign's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6088206,-71.3212347,3a,75y,213.88h,89.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVONRFrfMFA660EjIp7xPOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) days are numbered.

According to the project page, the signs were to be installed in December. Certainly the weather didn't delay the work. Not only are the center tab sign's days numbered, but also the number for the US 3 North exit, which will become 1C under the new milepost system. Too bad they couldn't have done the sign replacement and the exit number change at the same time.

2. New signs for the Lowell Connector are waiting to be installed, they're sitting in the Industrial Drive loop ramp green areas. This means that the center-tab Exit 1N sign's (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6088206,-71.3212347,3a,75y,213.88h,89.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVONRFrfMFA660EjIp7xPOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) days are numbered.

According to the project page, the signs were to be installed in December. Certainly the weather didn't delay the work. Not only are the center tab sign's days numbered, but also the number for the US 3 North exit, which will become 1C under the new milepost system. Too bad they couldn't have done the sign replacement and the exit number change at the same time.

Signs further up the Connector are already installed. The last group of signs will be the ones for Exits 1A/B/N I-495/US 3. I drive on it often enough that I should have the ones already replaced memorized, but I don't have an exact inventory in my head.

With the new year, thought I'd post a summary of current MassDOT sign replacement projects, based on the information on the MassDOT site, and note the upcoming ones for this year.Among those listed as under construction in the MassDOT project listings, 3 are still listed, though 100% complete: 604937 I-95 between Newton and Lexington, 605442 I-91 between Longmeadow and W. Springfield, and 606157 Toll Plaza signing along the Mass Pike.1, as discussed above, is almost complete: 606014, the Lowell Connector.The rest are partially completed: 605444 I-195 between Seekonk and Dartmouth (including MA 24 south of I-95), 83% complete as of 12/8/15; 605703 I-495 between Lowell and Methuen, listed as 10% complete but with a Spring 2016 completion date; 605833 I-91 between W. Springfield and Bernardston, 50% complete with a Spring 2016 completion date; 606212 I-290 between Worcester and Marlborough, 93% complete, though was to be completed in the Winter of 2014/15; and the 606619 I-90 W. Stockbridge to Auburn project, no completion % listing yet.

These projects are due to start in 2016: 606620 I-495 Raynham to Bolton, to start in Spring 2016; 606712 I-90 Mass Pike Auburn to Boston, to start in Spring 2016; 607918 US 6 Mid-Cape Highway from Sandwich to Orleans, to start in Fall 2016; 607916 MA 24 Fall River to Randolph, to start in Winter 2016/17, and, of course, 608024, Statewide conversion of Interstate and Freeway-Based Exit numbers to Mileage Based, starting January 2016 (?).

The rest are partially completed: 605444 I-195 between Seekonk and Dartmouth (including MA 24 south of I-95),

Most of the signs on 195 in that stretch are more or less OK and don't need replacing; it's the remaining signs on the RI side that need replacing. You don't need this much greenout for this sign, for example.https://goo.gl/maps/ZRoXebwpnP22

I think there was already a gantry there, but just to support a VMS sign eastbound.

The VMS gantry is eastbound, directly in front of the ramp overpass to the barracks. The AET gantry is just west of the barracks and maintenance depot and spans both directions. I went through there this evening and could plainly see the flat-plate antennas already mounted on the gantry. It was right at dusk, so I couldn't see whether the cameras had been mounted.

The rest are partially completed: 605444 I-195 between Seekonk and Dartmouth (including MA 24 south of I-95),

Most of the signs on 195 in that stretch are more or less OK and don't need replacing; it's the remaining signs on the RI side that need replacing. You don't need this much greenout for this sign, for example.https://goo.gl/maps/ZRoXebwpnP22

Agreed, but RIDOT doesn't replace signs as often as MassDOT (and its predecessors). Believe it or not, those particular BGS' are from the late 70s/early 80s.

Found this on Sturbridge FD's Facebook page this morning. The MA 15 legacy is apparently alive and well.

At 3:59, Public Safety Dispatcher Tyler Bresse received a 911 call reporting flames from a room at the Publick House motor lodges off Haynes Street/Route 15. A second alarm was immediately struck, followed by a third alarm at 4:15 bring in multiple area fire departments mutual aid for building search and firefighting operations. All parties staying at the lodge were safely evacuated while fire suppression operations were underway. At 4:59 a fourth alarm was struck for man power bringing in personnel to relieve firefighters already working the fire scene. Shortly after 5am all personnel were cleared from the building due to structural compromise and all firefighting activity moved to an exterior operation. There are currently over 10 agencies working the fire scene.

I haven't kept close enough watch on the AET thing. So this is going to turn the Mass Pike into a open system? I assumed they would just replace every toll booth on the ramps with AET facilities and continue the current closed system.

Found this on Sturbridge FD's Facebook page this morning. The MA 15 legacy is apparently alive and well.

At 3:59, Public Safety Dispatcher Tyler Bresse received a 911 call reporting flames from a room at the Publick House motor lodges off Haynes Street/Route 15. A second alarm was immediately struck, followed by a third alarm at 4:15 bring in multiple area fire departments mutual aid for building search and firefighting operations. All parties staying at the lodge were safely evacuated while fire suppression operations were underway. At 4:59 a fourth alarm was struck for man power bringing in personnel to relieve firefighters already working the fire scene. Shortly after 5am all personnel were cleared from the building due to structural compromise and all firefighting activity moved to an exterior operation. There are currently over 10 agencies working the fire scene.

If one gets a receipt from the Pilot station along Haynes (near I-84's Exit 1); it will list the address as Route 15.

Unfortunately the MassPike is indeed becoming an open system. 10 barriers across the system. No toll to travel the exits near Springfield. IMO closed systems are more convenient. Just one line on that E-ZPass statement, not up to 10.

Damn, I guess I'm gonna have to affix my EZPass to my windshield now. Currently I pull it out only at toll gates and otherwise keep it in the metallic pouch. I don't really want that adhesive on my windshield.

According to MassDOT's map, and assuming no changes since that map was published, the AET collection points are:

West Stockbridge, near exit 1Blandford, between exits 2 and 3Westfield, just east of exit 3Ludlow, between exits 7 and 8Warren, between exits 8 and 9Charlton, between exits 9 and 10Hopkinton, between exits 11 and 11ASouthborough, between exits 11A and 12Framingham, between exits 12 and 13Weston, between exits 13 and 14/15Newtonville, between exits 16 and 17Brighton, between exits 17 and 18/19/20Allston, just east of exits 18/19/20South Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel EB)East Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel WB)East Boston (Sumner Tunnel entrance on MA 1A)

The collection points are contrived to allow toll-free local trips in the Springfield (exits 4-7) and Worcester (exits 10-11) areas. In Boston, not so much. A commuter entering at exit 12, on their way to downtown Boston (a commonly made trip from MetroWest), would pass five collection points. Someone entering the Pike from 128, another common trip, would pass three collection points on their way to downtown Boston.

According to MassDOT's map, and assuming no changes since that map was published, the AET collection points are:

West Stockbridge, near exit 1Blandford, between exits 2 and 3Westfield, just east of exit 3Ludlow, between exits 7 and 8Warren, between exits 8 and 9Charlton, between exits 9 and 10Hopkinton, between exits 11 and 11ASouthborough, between exits 11A and 12Framingham, between exits 12 and 13Weston, between exits 13 and 14/15Newtonville, between exits 16 and 17Brighton, between exits 17 and 18/19/20Allston, just east of exits 18/19/20South Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel EB)East Boston (Ted Williams Tunnel WB)East Boston (Sumner Tunnel entrance on MA 1A)

The collection points are contrived to allow toll-free local trips in the Springfield (exits 4-7) and Worcester (exits 10-11) areas. In Boston, not so much. A commuter entering at exit 12, on their way to downtown Boston (a commonly made trip from MetroWest), would pass five collection points. Someone entering the Pike from 128, another common trip, would pass three collection points on their way to downtown Boston.

So much for my old cheat of Storrow->Newton, onto the Pike to MA 16, then down to 9. Not sure that's actually faster than just taking 9, anyway.

I took a quick road trip on Sunday along part of the I-95/128 corridor. I checked out some of the new guide or paddle signs installed as part of the renovation of the University Ave/RR Station exit in Westwood. I also checked out progress on the Add-A-Lane project in the Needham area. Clearing the area for bridge work in the MA 9 area has removed the existing overhead BGSs that were replaced by temporary signage.

All of the photos can be reached through my I-95 in Mass. photo page. Click on the link at the top to get to the Add-A-Lane photos:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)

RIP the center-tab Exit 1N sign; as of yesterday all of the remaining signs are up on the Lowell connector. There is still a gantry of old signs that needs to be taken down on Industrial ave, but the new signs are directly behind them and will probably be removed in the next few days.

I took a quick road trip on Sunday along part of the I-95/128 corridor. I checked out some of the new guide or paddle signs installed as part of the renovation of the University Ave/RR Station exit in Westwood. I also checked out progress on the Add-A-Lane project in the Needham area. Clearing the area for bridge work in the MA 9 area has removed the existing overhead BGSs that were replaced by temporary signage.

All of the photos can be reached through my I-95 in Mass. photo page. Click on the link at the top to get to the Add-A-Lane photos:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)

Will Kendrick St. become the new Exit 19A and Highland Ave. become Exits 19B-C? Is Kendrick St. only accessible from 95/128 SB?

I took a quick road trip on Sunday along part of the I-95/128 corridor. I checked out some of the new guide or paddle signs installed as part of the renovation of the University Ave/RR Station exit in Westwood. I also checked out progress on the Add-A-Lane project in the Needham area. Clearing the area for bridge work in the MA 9 area has removed the existing overhead BGSs that were replaced by temporary signage.

Will Kendrick St. become the new Exit 19A and Highland Ave. become Exits 19B-C? Is Kendrick St. only accessible from 95/128 SB?

On the map at the project website the Kendrick St. exit is labeled 19A (though by the time it is completed next fall, the number could be 35A), the Highland Avenue exit is not labeled. Kendrick St. will be accessible from both directions with a C/D ramp built between Kendrick St. and Highland Ave. There will be a new flyover ramp that will take traffic from Kendrick St. to I-95 North. Hard to tell if southbound traffic from Highland Ave. will be able to access I-95 directly or only from the new on-ramp from Kendrick St.

Over the weekend MassDOT posted an advertisement for bids on the next sign replacement contract along I-495 from Raynham to Bolton (Current Exits 8 to 27/ Future Exits 22 to 70), Project Number 606620. The winning bidder is to be announced March 8.

The contract page is up, but nothing for now, except the general notice to contractors: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000006897&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000006897&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

So much for my old cheat of Storrow->Newton, onto the Pike to MA 16, then down to 9. Not sure that's actually faster than just taking 9, anyway.

I don't think it is unless there's an exceptional backup on the Mass Pike. I got off at 128 to 16 back to the Pike (and off at Newton Corner to Nonantum Road) a few times when I lived in Allston. Cheaper toll at 128, but negligible enough not to go fussing around with traffic lights and slower roads.

Just noticed yesterday that the neat little drawbridge ("Woods Memorial Bridge") that carries Route 16 over the Malden River is being replaced. It's in rough shape and apparently hasn't opened in 30 years.

Just noticed yesterday that the neat little drawbridge ("Woods Memorial Bridge") that carries Route 16 over the Malden River is being replaced. It's in rough shape and apparently hasn't opened in 30 years.

Just noticed yesterday that the neat little drawbridge ("Woods Memorial Bridge") that carries Route 16 over the Malden River is being replaced. It's in rough shape and apparently hasn't opened in 30 years.

I've been reading here about the "paddle sign" replacements.. And I have not seen one yet in my travels through Massachusetts.. Are they really getting rid of the paddles? And what about the town line signs? Please don't tell me they are getting rid of those! I think Massachusetts' road signs are full of personality and help give the state its unique character.. I don't see them causing any harm.. We get around Mass just fine with them..

I've been reading here about the "paddle sign" replacements.. And I have not seen one yet in my travels through Massachusetts.. Are they really getting rid of the paddles? And what about the town line signs? Please don't tell me they are getting rid of those! I think Massachusetts' road signs are full of personality and help give the state its unique character.. I don't see them causing any harm.. We get around Mass just fine with them..

I haven't heard anything regarding the town border Book-Leaf paddle signs (Roadman can chime in on this) design being changed.

There are a couple examples of the new D6/D8 LGS style presently (featuring mixed-case control city/destination lettering) out there.

Along MA 113 eastbound near I-95 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8155804,-70.9206906,3a,75y,113.92h,75.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfPM5DcASVcvpAfc0yCX6ZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Note the foundation remnants of a larger BGS installation that was replaced with the current LGS' in response to residences complaining about the size of the larger signs (i.e. a bit overkill for a residential street).

Scroll down to 9/29/15 photo showing new D6 LGS along MA 16 at I-95 South on-ramp (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)

I've been reading here about the "paddle sign" replacements.. And I have not seen one yet in my travels through Massachusetts.. Are they really getting rid of the paddles? And what about the town line signs? Please don't tell me they are getting rid of those! I think Massachusetts' road signs are full of personality and help give the state its unique character.. I don't see them causing any harm.. We get around Mass just fine with them..

At this time, MassDOT has no plans to change the design of the 'bookleaf' town line signs used on secondary state highways. As for the D6/D8 'paddle' guide signs, MassDOT is still finalizing the new design standards, which are expected to be similar to the sign on MA 16 at I-95 south (extruded panel on steel beam post). This will allow the use of larger mixed case legends (8"/6") on these signs, which is now not possible with many legends due to the limited sizes of the sheet aluminum panels traditionally specified for D6 and D8 signs.

For now, MassDOT has issued interim design guidelines allowing for the use of mixed-case legends on D6 and D8 signs in limited circumstances. In summary, mixed case legends are to be used on new signs if the legends can be reasonably fit on standard size blanks mounted to either tubular posts ("paddle" mounting) or single steel beam posts, and if all signs at a given location are able to be upgraded to the larger mixed-case legends. For now, D6 and D8 signs that are replaced as 'one-offs', such as through accident recovery or the District maintenance contracts, will be replaced with signs retaining the all uppercase legends.

Clear as mud, right? Now, would anyone like me to explain the purpose of the blue lines in hockey (old Mad Magazine routine)?

Here is something I have always found interesting. Why do SR 24 and SR 128 have service areas when the roads were never tolled?

Because they were built before the Interstate system. Several expressways and parkways in New York (including I-87 in the Bronx) have (or in most cases, had) service areas and they were mostly free roads.

I am aware that the expressways and parkways of New York had gas station service areas. Most of them were torn down in the late 1970's, and only a few remain (Belt, Grand Central, Hutchinson River, Major Deegan, Palisades Interstate in NJ).

I am aware that the expressways and parkways of New York had gas station service areas. Most of them were torn down in the late 1970's, and only a few remain (Belt, Grand Central, Hutchinson River, Major Deegan, Palisades Interstate in NJ).

Palisades Parkway in New York, too (including one turned into a bookstore).

I've been reading here about the "paddle sign" replacements.. And I have not seen one yet in my travels through Massachusetts.. Are they really getting rid of the paddles? And what about the town line signs? Please don't tell me they are getting rid of those! I think Massachusetts' road signs are full of personality and help give the state its unique character.. I don't see them causing any harm.. We get around Mass just fine with them..

I haven't heard anything regarding the town border Book-Leaf paddle signs (Roadman can chime in on this) design being changed.

There are a couple examples of the new D6/D8 LGS style presently (featuring mixed-case control city/destination lettering) out there.

Along MA 113 eastbound near I-95 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8155804,-70.9206906,3a,75y,113.92h,75.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfPM5DcASVcvpAfc0yCX6ZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Note the foundation remnants of a larger BGS installation that was replaced with the current LGS' in response to residences complaining about the size of the larger signs (i.e. a bit overkill for a residential street).

Scroll down to 9/29/15 photo showing new D6 LGS along MA 16 at I-95 South on-ramp (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html)

Boo hiss on the loss of one of the few signs with 95 in text (not in a shield) to still remain when the gigantic BGS were installed, only to be replaced by the sorry paddle sign replacements. :D Sorry, I'm a paddle sign appreciator. (Old google street view shows the old text sign, not completely unique but pretty rare even then.)

Boo hiss on the loss of one of the few signs with 95 in text (not in a shield) to still remain when the gigantic BGS were installed, only to be replaced by the sorry paddle sign replacements. :D Sorry, I'm a paddle sign appreciator. (Old google street view shows the old text sign, not completely unique but pretty rare even then.)

Here's one from 1977 (lower/D8 panel) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5123003,-71.0436526,3a,75y,1.16h,75.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svVg8Gj4hV1FaDkI0BC6AdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that's still there.

Boo hiss on the loss of one of the few signs with 95 in text (not in a shield) to still remain when the gigantic BGS were installed, only to be replaced by the sorry paddle sign replacements. :D Sorry, I'm a paddle sign appreciator. (Old google street view shows the old text sign, not completely unique but pretty rare even then.)

Here's one from 1977 (lower/D8 panel) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5123003,-71.0436526,3a,75y,1.16h,75.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svVg8Gj4hV1FaDkI0BC6AdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that's still there.

Meanwhile, approaching the southbound on-ramp (and at the ramp) there's a recent paddle sign with both I-95 and 128 shields: https://goo.gl/maps/5TCKNmXNMzw (https://goo.gl/maps/5TCKNmXNMzw)

Is there some official policy to avoid ground mounted big green signs on interstates (except the Mass Pike). Ive been on most of all the interstates in MA except 190 195 and 391. Only highway in MA that I've seen that has them are Route 2 and Route 128, but there are still many many highways in MA that I haven't been on.

If Lowell Connector is state maintained how come they never assigned a number to it or even an unsigned number, there was Business Spur 495 but I meant like MA 203 or MA 595 or something?

When did the N/S/E/W suffixes end in MA? I remember seeing a few of those randomly many years back (2000) on a trip to Salem MA on Route 128.

Meanwhile, approaching the southbound on-ramp (and at the ramp) there's a recent paddle sign with both I-95 and 128 shields: https://goo.gl/maps/5TCKNmXNMzw (https://goo.gl/maps/5TCKNmXNMzw)

Those were installed by an independent contractor that obviously didn't get the memo regarding the prohibition of MA 128 shields on guidance signs along the I-95 portion of the Yankee Division Highway. IMHO, those particular LGS' are actually better looking (in terms of overall layout and I-95 shields) than the actual MassHighway/DOT erected ones nearby.

Is there some official policy to avoid ground mounted big green signs on interstates (except the Mass Pike). Ive been on most of all the interstates in MA except 190 195 and 391. Only highway in MA that I've seen that has them are Route 2 and Route 128, but there are still many many highways in MA that I haven't been on.

I believe the current MassDOT policy is to have all major BGS' overhead-mounted even along 4-laners. Supplemental BGS' can be and usually are ground-mounted.

The ground-mounted major BGS' one sees along I-90, MA 2 & 128 are older and predate the current policy. IIRC, most if not all of the older ground-mounted BGS' along 128 have since been replaced with newer overhead-mounted BGS'.

If Lowell Connector is state maintained how come they never assigned a number to it or even an unsigned number, there was Business Spur 495 but I meant like MA 203 or MA 595 or something?

Since 1971, MA 203 has been taken. At the time the Connector was built, not every highway in the Bay State was given a route number. Prior to 1971, the Southeast Expressway between Neponset Circle/Granite Ave. and Mass Ave. had no route number assigned to it (MA 3 exited and followed the current MA 203).

Prior to the mid-70s, the I-90 designation along the Mass Pike used to end at the Allston toll plaza (I-90 was originally supposed to end where the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've crossed). The Pike Extension from there to its pre-Big Dig terminus, the South Station Tunnel/Pulaski Skyway part of the Expressway (then unsigned I-95/now I-93) was for the first decade of its life unnumbered.

When did the N/S/E/W suffixes end in MA? I remember seeing a few of those randomly many years back (2000) on a trip to Salem MA on Route 128.

If you're referring to exit numbers; such were largely phased out during the mid-to-late 1980s. Routes that retained older exit numbers, like US 3, the Lowell Connector & MA 128 east of I-95, only retained the old-school N/S/E/W exit suffixes due to the signs yet not being replaced.

Along 128, the suffixed exits for MA 114 (Exit 25) changed from E/W (way back when such was S/N) to the current A/B sometime during the early 90s (maybe even late 80s).

The suffixes for MA 1A (Exit 20) changed from S/N to B/A sometime during the 90s when the overhead BGS' replaced the ground-mounted BGS'.

The suffixes for MA 35 (Exit 23S-N) and MA 62 (Exit 22E-W for the exit ramps off northbound 128) were recently dropped when the interchanges were completely reconfigured to diamond/SPUI-type interchanges.

IIRC, most if not all of the older ground-mounted BGS' along 128 have since been replaced with newer overhead-mounted BGS'.

Not all. Exits 25 and 26 (not on I-95) still have at least one ground-mounted BGS each.

I think you mean between Exits 24 and 25. All current major signage for the Lowell St. interchange (Exit 26) is now overhead-mounted.

The remaining ground-mounted BGS' for MA 114 (Exit 25) are along southbound 128 for the advance notice BGS (with no exit tab) and the BGS for the westbound 114 exit (25B). Both of which are the oldest interchange-related signage for that location.

All the signage for the Endicott St. interchange (Exit 24) are still ground-mounted, including a recent smallish temporary sign along 128 northbound. Such replaced a 1977-vintage BGS (that featured a center-mounted exit tab).

Prior to the mid-70s, the I-90 designation along the Mass Pike used to end at the Allston toll plaza (I-90 was originally supposed to end where the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've crossed). The Pike Extension from there to its pre-Big Dig terminus, the South Station Tunnel/Pulaski Skyway part of the Expressway (then unsigned I-95/now I-93) was for the first decade of its life unnumbered.

Thanks for posting that. I amended the history section of the I-90 page (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-090.html) on interstate-guide to reflect the lack of numbering east of the Allston toll plaza at that time. Were the ramps at Exit 18 built in anticipation of the Inner Belt freeway and then repurposed for Cambridge Street?

Prior to the mid-70s, the I-90 designation along the Mass Pike used to end at the Allston toll plaza (I-90 was originally supposed to end where the cancelled I-695/Inner Belt would've crossed). The Pike Extension from there to its pre-Big Dig terminus, the South Station Tunnel/Pulaski Skyway part of the Expressway (then unsigned I-95/now I-93) was for the first decade of its life unnumbered.

Thanks for posting that. I amended the history section of the I-90 page (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-090.html) on interstate-guide to reflect the lack of numbering east of the Allston toll plaza at that time. Were the ramps at Exit 18 built in anticipation of the Inner Belt freeway and then repurposed for Cambridge Street?

Actually, the Inner Belt was to cross the Pike east of the Allston toll plaza.

Is there some official policy to avoid ground mounted big green signs on interstates (except the Mass Pike). Ive been on most of all the interstates in MA except 190 195 and 391. Only highway in MA that I've seen that has them are Route 2 and Route 128, but there are still many many highways in MA that I haven't been on.

There is a policy as a previous poster said. A good example is MA-140, which used to have tons of ground mounted signage. Every exit aside from Exit 6 (a left exit) and Exit 2 (an Interstate) used to use ground mounted signage. Now, every guide sign on the route is overhead-mounted.

Is there some official policy to avoid ground mounted big green signs on interstates (except the Mass Pike). Ive been on most of all the interstates in MA except 190 195 and 391. Only highway in MA that I've seen that has them are Route 2 and Route 128, but there are still many many highways in MA that I haven't been on.

There is a policy as a previous poster said. A good example is MA-140, which used to have tons of ground mounted signage. Every exit aside from Exit 6 (a left exit) and Exit 2 (an Interstate) used to use ground mounted signage. Now, every guide sign on the route is overhead-mounted.

... and it's all on borrowed time. Foundations are in for the new signs, as of Christmas 2015. Haven't been down that way since then so I can't inform on any new signage going up. Given its winter, I doubt any real progress won't be made until the spring. Although its entirely possible, given the warm winter we've had thus far, that the contractor may still be active in the field. Just haven't had a chance to confirm that.

With sign replacement contracts in the works for I-91 and I-90, that will make most of Mass interstates BGSs overhead.

Interestingly about the 128 exits with the directional suffixes, the BGS at the exits did not have the cardinal directions spelled out with the shields--that was left entirely to the E/W/N/S suffix on the exit number. When the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally), they should have added EAST and WEST text to the old signs, but never did. The signs, even a one-off replacement southbound made faithfully with square 114 shield and centered tab, only said 114 and destination. The combining of the direction into the exit number was a neat thing that saved space but was certainly too subtle and couldn't be sustained with the move to A-B from directional suffixes.

New signage is going up on I-91. A few new overheads were installed near Exits 24 and 25. Mostly newer ground level stuff was installed at least as of a week ago. Looks like paddle sign replacement was done in many places already. And lots of foundations for new overhead signs are there too

Interestingly about the 128 exits with the directional suffixes, the BGS at the exits did not have the cardinal directions spelled out with the shields--that was left entirely to the E/W/N/S suffix on the exit number. When the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally), they should have added EAST and WEST text to the old signs, but never did. The signs, even a one-off replacement southbound made faithfully with square 114 shield and centered tab, only said 114 and destination. The combining of the direction into the exit number was a neat thing that saved space but was certainly too subtle and couldn't be sustained with the move to A-B from directional suffixes.

Speaking of which, what's with the aversion to directional suffixes? Are they specifically banned in the MUTCD? NYSDOT region 8 uses them almost exclusively and they've become an expected trope, very intuitive.

Interestingly about the 128 exits with the directional suffixes, the BGS at the exits did not have the cardinal directions spelled out with the shields--that was left entirely to the E/W/N/S suffix on the exit number. When the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally), they should have added EAST and WEST text to the old signs, but never did. The signs, even a one-off replacement southbound made faithfully with square 114 shield and centered tab, only said 114 and destination. The combining of the direction into the exit number was a neat thing that saved space but was certainly too subtle and couldn't be sustained with the move to A-B from directional suffixes.

Speaking of which, what's with the aversion to directional suffixes? Are they specifically banned in the MUTCD? NYSDOT region 8 uses them almost exclusively and they've become an expected trope, very intuitive.

Yes, the MUTCD says to use A-B-C. I believe the main point is that with mileage-based exit numbering, you may end up with more than two ramps per mile. Therefore, the MUTCD recommends alphabetical suffixes rather than directional.

If that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way). Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way. I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.

If that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

When AET "goes live" in Fall of 2016, two-way tolling will be reinstated for all the harbor crossings, including the Callahan Tunnel and the Tobin Bridge northbound. As I understand it, the current 'inbound' tolls will be reduced by 50% when that happens.

Quote

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way

The reason one way tolls were originally implemented in the 1970s 1983 (thanks PHLBOS for the correction) was to reduce congestion caused manual collection at the toll booths. With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

If that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way). Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way. I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.

Shunpiking across Boston Harbor? There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

People I know who go into East Boston from the north already often go these ways, but for everybody else, this is an enormous pain in the ass of a detour.

If that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way). Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way. I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.

Shunpiking across Boston Harbor? There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

People I know who go into East Boston from the north already often go these ways, but for everybody else, this is an enormous pain in the ass of a detour.

If that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way). Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way. I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.

Shunpiking across Boston Harbor? There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

People I know who go into East Boston from the north already often go these ways, but for everybody else, this is an enormous pain in the ass of a detour.

MA 99? Or is that already listed?

Route 99 crosses the Alford Street Bridge. It's a doable route to skip the Tobin, but you can add ten minutes onto your trip to save $1.25 (valuing your time, once again, at minimum wage). The most direct route that way to Chelsea is on Beacham Street, a winding, narrow street lined with petroleum and generating facilities, the produce terminal, and King Arthur's Lounge. It is a suspension-wrecker that handles heavy truck traffic and I suspect it gets left that way to prevent more shunpiking.

It is a long, lousy route to avoid a toll. Using it to avoid traffic is a little more plausible.

One can also stay on 99 to 16 East, then cut down through Chelsea, but you have to have one hell of a miserly chip on your shoulder to go that far for a buck.

If that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way). Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Personally; AET or no AET, all the harbor crossing tolls should stay one-way. I would also make the Allston plaza/gantry a one-way collection for eastbound I-90/Pike traffic.

Shunpiking across Boston Harbor? There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

People I know who go into East Boston from the north already often go these ways, but for everybody else, this is an enormous pain in the ass of a detour.

MA 99? Or is that already listed?

Route 99 crosses the Alford Street Bridge. It's a doable route to skip the Tobin, but you can add ten minutes onto your trip to save $1.25 (valuing your time, once again, at minimum wage). The most direct route that way to Chelsea is on Beacham Street, a winding, narrow street lined with petroleum and generating facilities, the produce terminal, and King Arthur's Lounge. It is a suspension-wrecker that handles heavy truck traffic and I suspect it gets left that way to prevent more shunpiking.

It is a long, lousy route to avoid a toll. Using it to avoid traffic is a little more plausible.

I thought King Arthur's Lounge closed. Either way, I've been through there once and once is enough to know how much of a mess it is.

When the Route 114 exits were changed to A-B from E-W (with A and B in the wrong order, incidentally),

I believe that such may have been intentional in a premature anticipation of the exit numbers changing; especially in terms of the direction order.

As most here (including yourself) know, the current interchange numbers along 128 are the only remaining ones in the Bay State in reverse order (increasing southbound rather than northbound).

Indeed what is B-A now will stay B-A when the exit numbers are changed sometime in the next couple years, but I wonder how far they were planning ahead. Somehow whether it was still DPW or had become MassHighway at that time (I forget exactly), I get the feeling they weren't thinking that far ahead, although I could be wrong. :D

The biggest lettering change that needs to be avoided is 95/128 at I-93. Changing from 37A-B to 55B-C because Washington St. gets 55A is silly. Fudge Washington St. to 54, then keep the A-B sequence as-is for I-93. If it was indeed important enough to have the Route 114 A-B exits out of order for nearly 30 years so they wouldn't flip from B-A to A-B when renumbered, then it ought to be important enough to keep the A-B sequence intact at an important, if dysfunctional/underpowered, system interchange.

As far as AET in former one-way-toll locations, wouldn't AET involve adding gantries where there had been none? If it cuts down on the infrastructure cost and on the number of transactions to process, leaving what is now one-way as-is wouldn't be a disaster. If people have gotten used to the one-way tolls where they are and GPS/maps show the tolls in those directions and not the others, then messing with it can add issues.

I thought King Arthur's Lounge closed. Either way, I've been through there once and once is enough to know how much of a mess it is.

My best advice to anyone is to admit knowing as little as possible about King Arthur's, for all kinds of reasons.

I got into a few fights with the significant other over taking her car down that road. While the condition of the pavement was the ostensible reason, I know the very sight of that place made her skin crawl.

When AET "goes live" in Fall of 2016, two-way tolling will be reinstated for all the harbor crossings, including the Callahan Tunnel and the Tobin Bridge northbound. As I understand it, the current 'inbound' tolls will be reduced by 50% when that happens.

As it should be.

Thanks for the info./clarification. I knew something was off. The info. Sid received and posted (in reference to the Sumner Tunnel remaining 1-way) was obviously incorrect. Such was why I brought it up and commented on it.

The reason one way tolls were originally implemented in the 1970s was to reduce congestion caused manual collection at the toll booths. With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

Correct on the reasoning (as a kid, I remember that traffic from the Callahan Tunnel toll booths went as far as the Central Artery off-ramps at times); incorrect on the time of implementation. One-way tolls were implemented on all tolled harbor crossings in late 1983. I used to have an old Massport Annual Report from then that covered the one-way toll conversion.

If that list is correct and current, it appears that they're doing away with one-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but keeping one-way tolls at the Sumner and Tobin Bridge (the latter is already AET).

Bad idea, either tolled crossing should have the same collection mode (either all one-way or all two-way). Having a mixture would only increase shunpiking.

Shunpiking across Boston Harbor? There's really not much in the way of easy shunpikes into East Boston from the other side of the crossings. You're talking about using the Meridian Street bridge between Chelsea and East Boston, and some combination of Beacham Street through Everett and Chelsea, the Alford Street bridge across the Mystic River, and other unappealing routes in that area (that are all going to get less appealing once the idiot-impoverishing facility is built in Everett).

You might want to reread my earlier post again. My shunpiking reference was only directed towards Sid's listing (which was proven to be incorrect by Roadman) of having 2-way tolls at the Ted Williams Tunnel but still a 1-way toll at the Sumner. That scenario (which, again will not be the case) would have someone heading into Downtown Boston via the Ted Williams Tunnel (at half of the present toll) but returning via the Callahan Tunnel or Tobin Bridge (both presently have no outbound toll).

Correct on the reasoning (as a kid, I remember that traffic from the Callahan Tunnel toll booths went as far as the Central Artery off-ramps at times); incorrect on the time of implementation. One-way tolls were implemented on all tolled harbor crossings in late 1983. I used to have an old Massport Annual Report from then that covered the one-way toll conversion.

Ah yes - have clarified my original posting. Thanks. And I began riding express buses between Lynn and Boston in 1978, so I've experienced the traffic conditions you described firsthand. On days when the Callahan Tunnel was really backed up, our driver would head into Charlestown and over the Tobin Bridge instead.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?

... and erecting new gantries? Technically, yes.

Use one long gantry. Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?

... and erecting new gantries? Technically, yes.

Use one long gantry. Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?

... and erecting new gantries? Technically, yes.

Use one long gantry. Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.

Can't really do that for the Tobin Bridge; the out/northbound lanes are on the lower level.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Wouldn't one-way tolling also save half the cost of detectors?

... and erecting new gantries? Technically, yes.

Use one long gantry. Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.

Can't really do that for the Tobin Bridge; the out/northbound lanes are on the lower level.

Which has an overhead structure already in place, i.e. the inbound lanes.

... and it's all on borrowed time. Foundations are in for the new signs, as of Christmas 2015. Haven't been down that way since then so I can't inform on any new signage going up. Given its winter, I doubt any real progress won't be made until the spring. Although its entirely possible, given the warm winter we've had thus far, that the contractor may still be active in the field. Just haven't had a chance to confirm that.

With sign replacement contracts in the works for I-91 and I-90, that will make most of Mass interstates BGSs overhead.

According to the project listing, the I-91 project is 50% complete. It still lists the completion date as this Spring.

Use one long gantry. Even if it requires a third footing (doubtful), it's cheaper than two gantries.

Unlike supports for overhead BGS signs, AETS gantries have to be constructed to much closer requirements in regards to minimizing support vibration and movement. This is because of the close tolerances the detection equipment demands to work properly. So, for the average multi-lane freeway, a single "complete span" (i.e. across all lanes) gantry could not be constructed without a central upright - which may not be feasible if you have a narrow median. Even if feasible to install the central support, the design requirements for the structure could easily result in the complete span being more expensive to fabricate and construct than a pair of single span structures.

Further, a single complete span structure reduces the flexibility of placing the AETS equipment over the roadway. Because of the more precise tolerances required for proper vehicle detection and system operation, one direction of the highway at a given location may be suitable for the AETS equipment, while the other side is not.

Which has an overhead structure already in place, i.e. the inbound lanes.

The inbound and outbound lanes exiting/entering the CANA (City Square) Tunnel are at slightly different profiles and are separate structures. Further, the lanes almost immediately transition to separate elevated structures at the tunnel portals. So modifying or extending the existing "inbound" structure to accommodate the AETS equipment over the "outbound" lanes is not practical.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Port Authority (NY/NJ) considered it but years ago decided not to. Since they still haven't implemented it, it's always possible, but would require cooperation with the NY Thruway (which is AET so could presumably add the other direction). I don't think they need to worry about the bridges farther upstream, since the eastbound tolls are already so low that one-way vs. two-way shouldn't matter for shunpiking.

A couple of the gantries are now up on I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike for the electronic tolling. I saw the first one just west of Exit 12 (MA Route 9) in Framingham and the other one by the state police barracks in Weston near the Natick town line. There might have been a third one further west from there, but I'm not 100% sure.

According to the project listing, the I-91 project is 50% complete. It still lists the completion date as this Spring.

Wow... find that hard to believe. But then again, after this extremely warm winter, maybe progress has indeed been made. As of Christmas, only the foundations were installed. I'd estimate sometime in April as when I'll find out any further progress.

With AET, this is no longer an issue, so there is no legitimate reason to retain this system.

True, but I believe that Massachusetts may be the only state that's presently reverting back to a 2-way toll collection at its bridge/tunnel crossings simultaneously (harbor tunnels only) with the its AET conversion.

Port Authority (NY/NJ) considered it but years ago decided not to. Since they still haven't implemented it, it's always possible, but would require cooperation with the NY Thruway (which is AET so could presumably add the other direction). I don't think they need to worry about the bridges farther upstream, since the eastbound tolls are already so low that one-way vs. two-way shouldn't matter for shunpiking.

Or PANYNJ could just toll WB trucks, similar to what NYSTA does with Spring Valley. Discourage the long-distance truckers from going that way.

I've posted some I-95 Add-A-Lane project photos, along with images of a few of the new electronic toll gantries installed on the Mass Pike, and some I-84 in MA signage photos (along with new signs on I-395 in CT) on this blog post: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/02/road-trip-to-future.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/02/road-trip-to-future.html)

Link to MassDOT press release blaming contractor error for delay in completing the Commonwealth Ave. bridge work over the Mass Pike. The good news, the closed fourth lane in the area will be opened until work starts again in 2017: http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-announces-i-90commonwealth-avenue-bridge-project-schedule-update/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-announces-i-90commonwealth-avenue-bridge-project-schedule-update/)

Several of those AET gantries are up. There's also one spanning the road immediately west of the westbound Framingham rest stop. This picture is westbound, near the state police barracks in Weston.

Most of those which are up are also powered up and running in "test" mode. You can see, especially at night, the flash of the cameras taking license plate pictures of those vehicles without E-ZPass tags.

I noticed this morning that they have restored "HOV 2+" status to the on and off ramps at I-90 on I-93. All of the "white out" has been removed from all the signs to reveal the original directive. Also, the 6-10 AM passenger car access on Bypass Road is gone. They have reinforced that it is only open to commercial traffic and placed white-out over the 6-10 AM allowance. Does anyone know why they had a change of heart on allowing more access to these roads?

I noticed this morning that they have restored "HOV 2+" status to the on and off ramps at I-90 on I-93. All of the "white out" has been removed from all the signs to reveal the original directive. Also, the 6-10 AM passenger car access on Bypass Road is gone. They have reinforced that it is only open to commercial traffic and placed white-out over the 6-10 AM allowance. Does anyone know why they had a change of heart on allowing more access to these roads?

The opening of the HOV lanes to all traffic and allowing use of the Bypass Road for the morning commute was part of a 6-month study which ended a couple weeks ago. There's more in this MassDOT blog entry:http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/south-boston-bypass-road-six-month-pilot-program-ends/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/south-boston-bypass-road-six-month-pilot-program-ends/)

I have driven that area plenty at rush hour before the latest round of development. It's pretty bad. I don't think these couple of minor adjustments are going to make do given the volumes this piece predicts.

The "Piers Transitway" was discussed as allowing for eventual conversion to light rail (though no provision exists in this regard for the airport leg). What should have been built was an Orange Line heavy rail spur from Back Bay to the airport, but there was too much "that's twenty years from now" going on.

Looks like it. There's warning stripes and some sort of gate that raises up and down.

This is a steel moveable barrier that's used to block Route 25 eastbound when the Bourne Bridge is closed to Cape bound traffic as part of the established MEMA evacuation plan for Cape Cod. That's the plan that will be implemented when a major hurricane is forecast to hit the Cape and islands.

(The "10" in the bottom half might be some other number.) The blanks were electronic signs that were off.

Could the number have been 13? The distance from Exit 33 (Mile 52) to Route 2 (Mile 46) is 6 miles while the distance to the Mass Pike (Mile 39) From Exit 33 is 13.

Glad to see the signs are moving south, from other reports they previously have been put up along US 3, where they were in test mode. Will be interesting to see what exits they use going further south. Will a sign after MA 2 have I-90 and I-95, or something closer, such as US 1.

According to the project listing (Project 607422) the contractor is currently working both on Routes 128 and 140 (as of 2/26) and the project is 27% complete.

There is not one after 495 heading Northbound, at least, not that I saw driving up this weekend. It's possible that I may have missed it. Since they may only have data to the NH state line, they may have omitted it.

Southbound:

Right after the NH State line:

I-495I-95

After Exit 29:

I-95I-93 via 95 N

After Exit 26

I-93US 20 in Waltham

I don't remember the exact mileage, but the intervals are generally 6-10 miles inbetween the destinations.

(The "10" in the bottom half might be some other number.) The blanks were electronic signs that were off.

Could the number have been 13? The distance from Exit 33 (Mile 52) to Route 2 (Mile 46) is 6 miles while the distance to the Mass Pike (Mile 39) From Exit 33 is 13.

Glad to see the signs are moving south, from other reports they previously have been put up along US 3, where they were in test mode. Will be interesting to see what exits they use going further south. Will a sign after MA 2 have I-90 and I-95, or something closer, such as US 1.

According to the project listing (Project 607422) the contractor is currently working both on Routes 128 and 140 (as of 2/26) and the project is 27% complete.

I decided to do some research to see if I could answer my questions above. I found the project bid page from September 2014 that has sketches of all the proposed signs. The answer to the mileage or I-90 is 12, despite the 13 miles between mileposts, the next sign is in Waltham and will read I-90 3 Miles, I-93 via I-90 East 14 miles.

The sketch images are available through links here: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-14-1030-0H100-0H002-00000000718&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-14-1030-0H100-0H002-00000000718&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

(The "10" in the bottom half might be some other number.) The blanks were electronic signs that were off.

Could the number have been 13? The distance from Exit 33 (Mile 52) to Route 2 (Mile 46) is 6 miles while the distance to the Mass Pike (Mile 39) From Exit 33 is 13.

Glad to see the signs are moving south, from other reports they previously have been put up along US 3, where they were in test mode. Will be interesting to see what exits they use going further south. Will a sign after MA 2 have I-90 and I-95, or something closer, such as US 1.

According to the project listing (Project 607422) the contractor is currently working both on Routes 128 and 140 (as of 2/26) and the project is 27% complete.

I decided to do some research to see if I could answer my questions above. I found the project bid page from September 2014 that has sketches of all the proposed signs. The answer to the mileage or I-90 is 12, despite the 13 miles between mileposts, the next sign is in Waltham and will read I-90 3 Miles, I-93 via I-90 East 14 miles.

The sketch images are available through links here: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-14-1030-0H100-0H002-00000000718&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-14-1030-0H100-0H002-00000000718&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

If you would prefer not to go through the contract documents for the sign sketches, I have posted copies of most of them, by route, along with some comments, in Part B of my Misc. Massachusetts Highway Photos site: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)

If you would prefer not to go through the contract documents for the sign sketches, I have posted copies of most of them, by route, along with some comments, in Part B of my Misc. Massachusetts Highway Photos site: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)

I have posted a couple of photos of the signs recently installed along I-95 south of Boston. This is one of three I saw this afternoon just before the Neponset Street exit on I-95 North:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95signs32616f.jpg)

There were two others, one on I-95 South before the US 1 exit in Dedham, the other further south just after the exit ramp for Coney Street in Walpole, the photo of the first is posted in place of the sketch of the sign in the link above (all the signs were identical to the sketches).

I was last on the Turnpike February 25th. I didn't see anything different east of the Weston toll plaza.

My daily commute takes me along Lincoln Street in Allston/Brighton, which parallels the MassPike just west of the toll barrier. A portion of the chain-link fence has been temporarily made easily removable to permit work on the tolling point from Lincoln Street. Work has been going on since December. The equipment shelter and emergency generator are in place, but the foundations for the gantry haven't been placed yet.

I took a quick road trip on Sunday along part of the I-95/128 corridor. I checked out some of the new guide or paddle signs installed as part of the renovation of the University Ave/RR Station exit in Westwood. I also checked out progress on the Add-A-Lane project in the Needham area. Clearing the area for bridge work in the MA 9 area has removed the existing overhead BGSs that were replaced by temporary signage.

Will Kendrick St. become the new Exit 19A and Highland Ave. become Exits 19B-C? Is Kendrick St. only accessible from 95/128 SB?

On the map at the project website the Kendrick St. exit is labeled 19A (though by the time it is completed next fall, the number could be 35A), the Highland Avenue exit is not labeled. Kendrick St. will be accessible from both directions with a C/D ramp built between Kendrick St. and Highland Ave. There will be a new flyover ramp that will take traffic from Kendrick St. to I-95 North. Hard to tell if southbound traffic from Highland Ave. will be able to access I-95 directly or only from the new on-ramp from Kendrick St.

MassDOT has added a new diagram to their AddALane Project website which goes into greater detail as to the final ramp alignments for the Highland Ave./Kendrick St. and MA 9 interchanges. I've posted a copy on my I-95 Photo Gallery site:(http://gribblenation.net/mass21/i95addalaneneedhamramps.jpg)

Looks like, though their adding an entrance ramp NB, their combining the ramps to Highland Avenue into one meaning there will still be only A and B exits as currently. Traffic to I-95 SB from Highland Ave. will have to cross Kendrick St. first.

they have those travel time signs on US 3 South in Tyngsboro also. I don't remember the exact layout but the two things it was measuring distance to was I-495 and I-95. I don't remember seeing any on I-495 between US 3 and I-290 then again it was night time I was heading northbound and i was VERY TIRED trying to drive up to Nashua, and Southbound I was not really looking for them on 495.

If you would prefer not to go through the contract documents for the sign sketches, I have posted copies of most of them, by route, along with some comments, in Part B of my Misc. Massachusetts Highway Photos site: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)

I have posted a couple of photos of the signs recently installed along I-95 south of Boston. This is one of three I saw this afternoon just before the Neponset Street exit on I-95 North:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95signs32616f.jpg)

There were two others, one on I-95 South before the US 1 exit in Dedham, the other further south just after the exit ramp for Coney Street in Walpole, the photo of the first is posted in place of the sketch of the sign in the link above (all the signs were identical to the sketches).

Son of a bitch. The current travel time PCMS is AFTER the Neponset Street exit, not before. I get on at Neponset Street every day.

Here's an aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3067742,-71.2229842,2858m/data=!3m1!1e3) of the area that the not-to-scale graphic's loosely based on.

IMHO, I still believe that converting the Route 9 cloverleaf into a parclo is a mistake given the traffic volumes and the number of traffic lights already on that road. If MassDOT wanted to experiment with such on this particular project; the Highland Ave. interchange would've been a better candidate for a conversion IMHO.

Here's an aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3067742,-71.2229842,2858m/data=!3m1!1e3) of the area that the not-to-scale graphic's loosely based on.

IMHO, I still believe that converting the Route 9 cloverleaf into a parclo is a mistake given the traffic volumes and the number of traffic lights already on that road. If MassDOT wanted to experiment with such on this particular project; the Highland Ave. interchange would've been a better candidate for a conversion IMHO.

I have posted some new photos taken yesterday (4/2) traveling through the construction zone southbound, available at:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#addalane)

You can view Mass state maps from the 1930s up to 2009. City inserts, Boston detail (inside 128 and center city), and Mass Pike toll tickets.... it's all there. There's also a 1970s Texaco tri-state (CT-RI-MA) map and a Mass Pike map in there as well. Some of those old maps even show exit listings, not just for the Mass Pike, but for 128 as well. Also one of them shows I-95 exits south of 128 being numbered based on the "#25 is 128" system. I knew the SE Exp'y, Rt 3 South, Rt 24, Rt 3 North, and 93N all used that system but didn't know 95S did as well.

But wait... there's more:

This link shows current maps:http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=8e959aade58249f3be95a96e48c52ff0

Included in those maps are rest areas, ITS locations, road-by-road milepost location, park & ride, national highway system, and more.

You can view Mass state maps from the 1930s up to 2009. City inserts, Boston detail (inside 128 and center city), and Mass Pike toll tickets.... it's all there. There's also a 1970s Texaco tri-state (CT-RI-MA) map and a Mass Pike map in there as well. Some of those old maps even show exit listings, not just for the Mass Pike, but for 128 as well. Also one of them shows I-95 exits south of 128 being numbered based on the "#25 is 128" system. I knew the SE Exp'y, Rt 3 South, Rt 24, Rt 3 North, and 93N all used that system but didn't know 95S did as well.

But wait... there's more:

This link shows current maps:http://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=8e959aade58249f3be95a96e48c52ff0

Included in those maps are rest areas, ITS locations, road-by-road milepost location, park & ride, national highway system, and more.

Good find. Could probably spend a few hours perusing all the items. A quick look at the last map listed, a 1974 Texaco CT/MA/RI has a I-95 shield on the SE Expressway on the Boston Inset as well as along the NE Expressway. The first map I've seen showing that short-term designation. The 1973 official Mass. map had someone has highlighted all the 'I-Routes' in the state which include 128 from Canton to Braintree being labeled I-93. If from 1973, this would be the earliest reference to this designation, however, this could have been done at later date.

The 1973 official Mass. map had someone has highlighted all the 'I-Routes' in the state which include 128 from Canton to Braintree being labeled I-93. If from 1973, this would be the earliest reference to this designation, however, this could have been done at later date.

As the I-95 and I-93 reroutings over MA 128 were not approved by FHWA until January of 1975, it's reasonable to presume that the 1973 map was indeed altered at a later date.

You can view Mass state maps from the 1930s up to 2009. City inserts, Boston detail (inside 128 and center city), and Mass Pike toll tickets.... it's all there. There's also a 1970s Texaco tri-state (CT-RI-MA) map and a Mass Pike map in there as well. Some of those old maps even show exit listings, not just for the Mass Pike, but for 128 as well. Also one of them shows I-95 exits south of 128 being numbered based on the "#25 is 128" system. I knew the SE Exp'y, Rt 3 South, Rt 24, Rt 3 North, and 93N all used that system but didn't know 95S did as well.

Great find. I've already saved that link to my Favorites.

I knew that 128's Exit 9 in Gloucester numbers weren't the original ones; but I wasn't aware that the change was made in 1962... I thought such a change was made circa 1959. Maybe it took a few years for the map(s) to catch up.

The state's 1961 map inadvertently predicted the future (at from 1974-1989) by showing an I-95 shield on US 1 just north of 128.

The 1973 official Mass. map had someone has highlighted all the 'I-Routes' in the state which include 128 from Canton to Braintree being labeled I-93. If from 1973, this would be the earliest reference to this designation, however, this could have been done at later date.

As the I-95 and I-93 reroutings over MA 128 were not approved by FHWA until January of 1975, it's reasonable to presume that the 1973 map was indeed altered at a later date.

I concur. My grandfather has a copy of the 1973 state roadmap (I regret not telling my father to send it to me when he moved my grandfather out of his apartment during the early 90s) and such contained no such references of I-93 extending south of the Northeast Expressway. Plus, a 1973 map showed Gov. Frank Sargent's picture; Mike Dukakis was governor when the first maps started showing the new I-95 & 93 routings.

It's worth noting that the 1973 map in that link is marked up with the words Proposed I-System with all the Interstate routes (present and then-future) marked by hand in black ink. This was clearly somebody's (at MassDPW perhaps?) mark-up. I love how the Route 128 exit number listings description still describes the then-21 year old Yankee Division Highway as the New Route 128. It also lists Exit 29 as For Future Use (for I-95) and Exit 63N as Future (for what would have been I-95 North).

It's fun looking at the Massachusetts state road maps, watching what would eventually be I-395 coming into existence. The road was only completed to Exit 1 in Webster on the 1971 map. Then it was finished to just north of the Webster/Oxford town line in 1973. I also see when I-190 for the northern stretches of Worcester will still being proposed. I-391 in Chicopee was shown as proposed by 1977. It looks like I-395 was completed to the Massachusetts Turnpike around 1978 or so.

As for the Texaco map from 1974: It had East Hartford to the Massachusetts state line as I-86 AND CT 15. Interesting. It looks like they also had US Route 44 along that stretch to Willington. Is that correct? Also, they had what was the completed portion of I-395 in Webster/Oxford as MA Route 193.

Also, the Lowell Connector was marked as 495 Spur all the way to the 1984 map.

Yet, in all that time, there were never any 495 Business Spur shields actually placed on guide signs for the Lowell Connector exits from I-495 or US 3.

That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.

As for the Texaco map from 1974: It had East Hartford to the Massachusetts state line as I-86 AND CT 15. Interesting. It looks like they also had US Route 44 along that stretch to Willington. Is that correct? Also, they had what was the completed portion of I-395 in Webster/Oxford as MA Route 193.

Yup, that would've been correct. I-86 and CT 15 were cosigned. Originally, Mashapaug Road was MA 15. The exit numbers on the CT portion were an extension of those from CT 15's. Exit 1 would've been at the Whitestone Bridge in New York City, as those numbers back then were contiguous with the Hutchinson Parkway, Merritt Parkway, up CT 15 to the Mass state line.

And for some reason, yes, US 44 was cosigned with I-86 and CT 15 up to Willington (today's Exit 69/CT 74). So it got on I-84 in Hartford, exited in East Hartford at today's Exit 53, and got back on at today's Exit 60. US 6 got on in Farmington and exited at today's Exit 60. Today's US 44 through Manchester out to Willington was signed US 44A, until it was rerouted to its present route. At that time, CT 74 got extended east of I-84/Exit 69.

That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.

I believe you have the actual situation backwards. Based on extensive research of available MassDPW plans and other internal records, I've determined that it was MassDPW that designated the road as a Business Spur (as evidenced by the fact the trailblazers in Lowell were fabricated by the MassDPW sign shop and presumably installed by District forces), but the designation was never officially sanctioned by AASHO or BPR.

Had AASHO or BPR officially given the Lowell Connector the I-495 Business Spur designation (which seems highly unlikely without the state requesting it first - which there is no evidence of in the records I've reviewed), then why wouldn't I-495 Business Spur shields have been placed on the exit signs on I-495 and US 3 for the Connector? And if the state did not officially recognize the designation, then why would the state highway department place trailblazer assemblies for it on local streets?

As for the state and gas company maps having the I-495 Spur designation on them, be reminded that companies like Rand McNally and the like get their information about roadway changes to update maps and guides from the individual states, and not from the Federal Government. Plus, if the state didn't officially recognize the designation, then why would it have been included on highway maps issued by the state? An error in one year perhaps, but it carried over through multiple years.

As I've indicated in my responses in previous threads about both the Lowell Connector and Business Loop/Spur designations, I have spent considerable time researching this issue. As such, and with due respect to your views, unless you or somebody else out here can produce physical evidence (by either scanning or linking to specific documents) to support the contention that the I-495 Business Spur designation was officially sanctioned at the Federal level but not actually recognized by Massachusetts, I am sticking to my story.

That's because apparently it was never designated as a Business Interstate by the state. It was federally assigned, and adopted by mapmakers and trailblazers were all over Lowell (one shield remained until a few years ago), but was never officially on the books in Mass.

I believe you have the actual situation backwards. Based on extensive research of available MassDPW plans and other internal records, I've determined that it was MassDPW that designated the road as a Business Spur (as evidenced by the fact the trailblazers in Lowell were fabricated by the MassDPW sign shop and presumably installed by District forces), but the designation was never officially sanctioned by AASHO or BPR.

Had AASHO or BPR officially given the Lowell Connector the I-495 Business Spur designation (which seems highly unlikely without the state requesting it first - which there is no evidence of in the records I've reviewed), then why wouldn't I-495 Business Spur shields have been placed on the exit signs on I-495 and US 3 for the Connector? And if the state did not officially recognize the designation, then why would the state highway department place trailblazer assemblies for it on local streets?

As for the state and gas company maps having the I-495 Spur designation on them, be reminded that companies like Rand McNally and the like get their information about roadway changes to update maps and guides from the individual states, and not from the Federal Government. Plus, if the state didn't officially recognize the designation, then why would it have been included on highway maps issued by the state? An error in one year perhaps, but it carried over through multiple years.

As I've indicated in my responses in previous threads about both the Lowell Connector and Business Loop/Spur designations, I have spent considerable time researching this issue. As such, and with due respect to your views, unless you or somebody else out here can produce physical evidence (by either scanning or linking to specific documents) to support the contention that the I-495 Business Spur designation was officially sanctioned at the Federal level but not actually recognized by Massachusetts, I am sticking to my story.

My research amounts to one email exchange with an official in 2010, which I no longer have so I was just going off of memory, and could easily have gotten them backwards. I'll go with your version for sure, you seem to have the topic blanketed really well.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on April 07, 2016, 12:12:12 AM

There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken. However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.

There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken. However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time, so drivers may not understand the difference between a green shield and a red and blue one. They may have incorrectly assumed that BS-495 was actually I-495, not understanding the difference.

Now for the trailblazers, it could be argued that since nearly all traffic getting on the connector is bound for the I-495/US-3 interchange, signing BS-495 from the streets would be less confusing because nearly all traffic is trying to reach I-495 anyway.

There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken. However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time

Or... ever? For that matter, there are no other business Interstates in New England. (NH had one, CT apparently had two I was never aware of.) The next closest one still extant is Business I-83 in York, PA.

There are many business Interstates that have not been approved by AASHTO (FHWA doesn't care about business routes). They are fully signed.

Point taken. However, regardless of who sanctioned the route, I still find it curious that MassDPW would place I-495 Business Spur signs on intersecting streets within Lowell, but not on either the Connector mainline or on I-495 or US 3 where they intersect the Connector.

My theory is that it was to eliminate confusion. There were no other business Interstates in Massachusetts at the time

Or... ever? For that matter, there are no other business Interstates in New England. (NH had one, CT apparently had two I was never aware of.) The next closest one still extant is Business I-83 in York, PA.

Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.

I heard from someone involved in the work that the overheads were assembled at Westover and then trucked along the Pike for erection at their various locations.

Progress continues on the Masspike's open road tolling project. The gantry for the Charlton readers was being installed tonight (and I was stuck in traffic as it had closed down two of three lanes). Meanwhile, the gantry in Ludlow was active tonight, presumably doing live testing.

It was interesting observing what I could as I drove past. The entire gantry is one pre-made structure that gets hoisted upon the previously laid supports by a crane. It had all of the equipment already mounted on it.

I heard from someone involved in the work that the overheads were assembled at Westover and then trucked along the Pike for erection at their various locations.

That's incredible, considering the twisty ramps at exit 5. This gantry has no middle support and it goes across all lanes in one assembly.

Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today. RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.

Sorry if you've already covered this upthread -- is this going to include exit renumbering?

The project was designed to use milepost-based exit numbers, but that may change. From the project addenda # 1:

Quote

ITEM 828.1 OVERHEAD GUIDE SIGN - SQUARE FOOTALUMINUM PANEL (TYPE B)The work under this item shall conform to the relevant provisions of Section 828 of the StandardSpecifications and the following:Legend, border, and background of signs shall be High Intensity Prismatic (HIP) retrotreflectivesheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better, except that the bannersindicating TOLL ROAD”, “EXIT ONLY”, etc. shall be fabricated with black opaque legend onyellow retro-reflective sheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better. . The project plans and details for these sign panels presume that the existing exit numbers withinthe project limits will be converted from the present sequential numbers to a referenced-based(milepost) numbering system. However, the Contractor is advised that this conversion may nowbe deferred until a later date. Accordingly, while the new exit number plates (tabs), gore, andother signs shall be fabricated of sufficient width to accommodate the future exit numbers, theContractor may be directed to provide the current sequential exit numbers on new signs for now.MassDOT shall inform the Contractor of which numbering scheme to use on new signs prior tosubmission of the sign face drawings for review and approval. (language added in Addenda # 1 - emphasis added)METHOD OF MEASUREMENTItem 828.1 will be measured for payment buy the square foot, complete in place,BASIS OF PAYMENTItem 828.1 will be paid for at the Contract unit price per square foot, which price shall includefurnishing and installing all materials, labor, equipment tools, appurtenances, and incidentalsnecessary to satisfactorily complete the item of work, complete, in place and accepted.

A little birdie (no, not Twitter) told me this language was added as a result of the backlash from the US 6 preliminary design plans.

Well that's terrible news. If these signs are fabricated with the sequential numbers and this is just going out for bid now, there may not actually be mileage based numbers in Mass until 2017 or 2018 (other than the Mass Pike, which is definitely getting them later this summer). It was supposed to start right around this month, but I guess they need tons more time to come up with a PR initiative that should have already been done.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if even on the new MassPike signs, they didn't put overlays with the existing exit numbers up "temporarily" until they decide to make the actual conversion. Especially if they end up chickening out on doing the rest of the state.

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general. That's the New England way.

How many of them whined when the 617 area code was split in two circa 1988 (the 508 code was introduced)?

How many of them whined when both the 508 & 617 regions were split again about 10 years later (781 & 978 coded were introduced)?

How many of them whined when 10-digit dialing was made mandatory when overlay codes (774 in the 508 region being one of them)?

How many of them whined when the original exit numbers along 128 changed (to Exit 9 = MA 127A) in the early 60s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along I-93 (north of Boston), I-95 (RI to Canton), MA 3 (Braintree to Plymouth) and MA 24 ditched their Exit 25 = MA 128 numbers to more MUTCD-compliant ones (though still sequential) during the 1970s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along most of 128 (the I-93 & 95 sections) and the rest of I-93 were changed to reflect their respective Interstate route numbers and lengths (I-93 north of Boston and I-95 north of 128) during the late 1980s?

Long story short, this current flap about pending mile-marker based exit number conversion is mostly a bunch of hot air IMHO.

Where MassDOT dropped the ball (sorry Roadman) was not adequately informing & educating the public about the upcoming change earlier. In retrospect, MassDOT (or its predecessors) should have selected one highway to try such a conversion first and see what happens. Then the public, would at least see a nearby example of such, and realize that such a change is not the end of the world as we know it (apologies to R.E.M.).

IMHO and I've stated such before, I-93 should've been converted to mile-marker based exit numbers immediately following the Big Dig construction (mainly the change from the Central Artery to the O'Neill Tunnel). The reduced number of exit ramps in the tunnel (vs. the old elevated artery) leaves some gaps in the sequential numbering.

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general. That's the New England way.

How many of them whined when the 617 area code was split in two circa 1988 (the 508 code was introduced)?

How many of them whined when both the 508 & 617 regions were split again about 10 years later (781 & 978 coded were introduced)?

How many of them whined when 10-digit dialing was made mandatory when overlay codes (774 in the 508 region being one of them)?

How many of them whined when the original exit numbers along 128 changed (to Exit 9 = MA 127A) in the early 60s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along I-93 (north of Boston), I-95 (RI to Canton), MA 3 (Braintree to Plymouth) and MA 24 ditched their Exit 25 = MA 128 numbers to more MUTCD-compliant ones (though still sequential) during the 1970s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along most of 128 (the I-93 & 95 sections) and the rest of I-93 were changed to reflect their respective Interstate route numbers and lengths (I-93 north of Boston and I-95 north of 128) during the late 1980s?

Long story short, this current flap about pending mile-marker based exit number conversion is mostly a bunch of hot air IMHO.

Where MassDOT dropped the ball (sorry Roadman) was not adequately informing & educating the public about the upcoming change earlier. In retrospect, MassDOT (or its predecessors) should have selected one highway to try such a conversion first and see what happens. Then the public, would at least see a nearby example of such, and realize that such a change is not the end of the world as we know it (apologies to R.E.M.).

IMHO and I've stated such before, I-93 should've been converted to mile-marker based exit numbers immediately following the Big Dig construction (mainly the change from the Central Artery to the O'Neill Tunnel). The reduced number of exit ramps in the tunnel (vs. the old elevated artery) leaves some gaps in the sequential numbering.

I agree. Shoulda taken a page out of ConnDOTs book. I haven't heard a single peep from anybody or from the local news about I-395s conversion.

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general. That's the New England way.

How many of them whined when the 617 area code was split in two circa 1988 (the 508 code was introduced)?

How many of them whined when both the 508 & 617 regions were split again about 10 years later (781 & 978 coded were introduced)?

How many of them whined when 10-digit dialing was made mandatory when overlay codes (774 in the 508 region being one of them)?

How many of them whined when the original exit numbers along 128 changed (to Exit 9 = MA 127A) in the early 60s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along I-93 (north of Boston), I-95 (RI to Canton), MA 3 (Braintree to Plymouth) and MA 24 ditched their Exit 25 = MA 128 numbers to more MUTCD-compliant ones (though still sequential) during the 1970s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along most of 128 (the I-93 & 95 sections) and the rest of I-93 were changed to reflect their respective Interstate route numbers and lengths (I-93 north of Boston and I-95 north of 128) during the late 1980s?

Long story short, this current flap about pending mile-marker based exit number conversion is mostly a bunch of hot air IMHO.

Where MassDOT dropped the ball (sorry Roadman) was not adequately informing & educating the public about the upcoming change earlier. In retrospect, MassDOT (or its predecessors) should have selected one highway to try such a conversion first and see what happens. Then the public, would at least see a nearby example of such, and realize that such a change is not the end of the world as we know it (apologies to R.E.M.).

Maybe that will end up being the case with the Mass Pike given that the 2 signing contracts have been awarded and they are separate from the blanket conversion contract. Say to the public you're using the Pike as an "experiment" and see what happens. When the world doesn't end proceed with changing all the other exits a year or two later.

No need for MassDOT to call proceeding with the exit number conversions on I-90/MassPike an "experiment". Most of the road has infrequent exits spaced a considerable distance apart. Plus, even though the MassPike is now controlled by MassDOT and maintained by the applicable District each section of the road runs through, there has been no real effort to remove the Massachusetts Turnpike branding.

IMO, these factors - plus the fact the signs are being replaced anyway - should be sufficient to continue with the I-90 conversion, and to explain to the public why the road is being converted.

And then don't offer up an alternative solution or be open to the idea of positive change in general. That's the New England way.

How many of them whined when the 617 area code was split in two circa 1988 (the 508 code was introduced)?

How many of them whined when both the 508 & 617 regions were split again about 10 years later (781 & 978 coded were introduced)?

How many of them whined when 10-digit dialing was made mandatory when overlay codes (774 in the 508 region being one of them)?

How many of them whined when the original exit numbers along 128 changed (to Exit 9 = MA 127A) in the early 60s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along I-93 (north of Boston), I-95 (RI to Canton), MA 3 (Braintree to Plymouth) and MA 24 ditched their Exit 25 = MA 128 numbers to more MUTCD-compliant ones (though still sequential) during the 1970s?

How many of them whined when the exit numbers along most of 128 (the I-93 & 95 sections) and the rest of I-93 were changed to reflect their respective Interstate route numbers and lengths (I-93 north of Boston and I-95 north of 128) during the late 1980s?

Long story short, this current flap about pending mile-marker based exit number conversion is mostly a bunch of hot air IMHO.

Where MassDOT dropped the ball (sorry Roadman) was not adequately informing & educating the public about the upcoming change earlier. In retrospect, MassDOT (or its predecessors) should have selected one highway to try such a conversion first and see what happens. Then the public, would at least see a nearby example of such, and realize that such a change is not the end of the world as we know it (apologies to R.E.M.).

IMHO and I've stated such before, I-93 should've been converted to mile-marker based exit numbers immediately following the Big Dig construction (mainly the change from the Central Artery to the O'Neill Tunnel). The reduced number of exit ramps in the tunnel (vs. the old elevated artery) leaves some gaps in the sequential numbering.

I agree. Shoulda taken a page out of ConnDOTs book. I haven't heard a single peep from anybody or from the local news about I-395s conversion.

That's because hardly anyone uses I-395, especially north of the CT 2A exit for Mohegan. When the 2di's are up for conversion in CT, the people of MA will seem to be space age dwellers by comparison. Lest we forget, CT was the last state in the contiguous US to raise their speed limit to 65 post-national speed limit law. They were one of the last states to allow Sunday liquor sales. Wait until the exit numbers in The Land of Steady Habits are changed.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on April 24, 2016, 10:49:00 PM

I have a question about the Rourke Bridge over the Merrimack in Lowell. I drove over it today and noticed it is a "temporary" Bailey bridge. With further research, I discovered that it was installed in 1983. Was there previously a "normal" bridge at this location? Also, will the "temporary structure" ever be replaced?

I have a question about the Rourke Bridge over the Merrimack in Lowell. I drove over it today and noticed it is a "temporary" Bailey bridge. With further research, I discovered that it was installed in 1983. Was there previously a "normal" bridge at this location? Also, will the "temporary structure" ever be replaced?

Historic Aerials says no, there was not previously a bridge there, at least not according to imagery from 1938 to 1978:

I have a question about the Rourke Bridge over the Merrimack in Lowell. I drove over it today and noticed it is a "temporary" Bailey bridge. With further research, I discovered that it was installed in 1983. Was there previously a "normal" bridge at this location? Also, will the "temporary structure" ever be replaced?

Used to be a ferry to the west, I think. There is an Old Ferry Rd on the north bank that ends at MA 113 just west of the bridge. There have been endless talks of replacing the bridge with a permanent and much better design than what is already there, but they frequently go nowhere.

This Lowell Sun story from 2 years ago does a good job going into the discussion of the potential replacement, http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_26678398/lowell-gridlock-and-bear-it-rourke-bridge-work

I have a question about the Rourke Bridge over the Merrimack in Lowell. I drove over it today and noticed it is a "temporary" Bailey bridge. With further research, I discovered that it was installed in 1983. Was there previously a "normal" bridge at this location? Also, will the "temporary structure" ever be replaced?

Used to be a ferry to the west, I think. There is an Old Ferry Rd on the north bank that ends at MA 113 just west of the bridge. There have been endless talks of replacing the bridge with a permanent and much better design than what is already there, but they frequently go nowhere.

This Lowell Sun story from 2 years ago does a good job going into the discussion of the potential replacement, http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_26678398/lowell-gridlock-and-bear-it-rourke-bridge-work

Upon looking at historical maps, I think there was nothing at all there. The Old Ferry Rd name may be a coincidence as I can't find anything showing what could've been a ferry at or near that crossing.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 1 on April 28, 2016, 11:49:42 AM

There's an Old Ferry Rd. in Methuen, MA, also off of MA 113. It's nowhere near water. "Old Ferry Rd." must refer to something else.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: NE2 on April 28, 2016, 01:16:32 PM

It was "Old Ferry Road" even back in 1891: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~254355~5519320:City-of-Lowell,-Massachusetts-? I'd bet there was a ferry a long time ago.

There's an Old Ferry Rd. in Methuen, MA, also off of MA 113. It's nowhere near water. "Old Ferry Rd." must refer to something else.

http://docs.unh.edu/MA/lwrc93ne.jpg

It's a little hard to see at the top left of this, but Old Ferry Rd used to go southeast along what's now 113 and right down to the river to an old ferry. The eastern part of that old road, east of 110/113, is called 'Ferry Rd' now. At one time, I believe the entire 2 mile long road was just called Ferry Rd. Also, on the other side of the river in Haverhill, is a Ferry Rd that follows the same line from the Methuen side and across to Ward Hill.

It was "Old Ferry Road" even back in 1891: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~254355~5519320:City-of-Lowell,-Massachusetts-? I'd bet there was a ferry a long time ago.

I wonder if it pre-dated the rail line that follows the river, given that would've likely been in the way of the southern approach. Also love the old Lowell maps, before a 2 sq. mile chunk of my town was stolen away by Lowell a few years after this.

MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)

MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)

These MA 140 signs are very good looking (shields well in proportion) and are very useful too. The ones on the interstates and MA 25 are going to be even more useful to many more people. This was one of the better projects MassDOT taken on.

These MA 140 signs are very good looking (shields well in proportion) and are very useful too. The ones on the interstates and MA 25 are going to be even more useful to many more people. This was one of the better projects MassDOT taken on.

Personally, I prefer full-blown VMSs telling trip times (a la ConnDOT) but this works just as well, I suppose.

IMHO, this should be a standard for all states to follow. Such would free up VMS' for their originally intended purpose of reporting unusual or extraordinary situations/circumstances. Drive/travel times are now more of a common entity.

Personally, I prefer full-blown VMSs telling trip times (a la ConnDOT) but this works just as well, I suppose.

PennDOT (& PTC) uses similar; however, some of the black sheeting has faded (along the Schuylkill Expressway portion of I-76 for example) on some of the older VMS' to a point where one can't even read the lighted message during daytime hours. Given that these VMS' in the Keystone State show travel times for the majority of the time they're on/illuminated; I would prefer the hybrid BGS/VMS that MassDOT is now using for such.

IMHO, this should be a standard for all states to follow. Such would free up VMS' for their originally intended purpose of reporting unusual or extraordinary situations/circumstances. Drive/travel times are now more of a common entity.

I agree. Ohio did this in several places and it is quite nice to know of an incident far enough in advance to take an alternate route. Ditto for NYSDOT Region 10.

MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)

I have seen these now on 95/128 in Waltham, 95 between Canton and Mansfield, 495 around 95 and 24, 140 between Taunton and New Bedford... none of them on yet.

MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)

I have seen these now on 95/128 in Waltham, 95 between Canton and Mansfield, 495 around 95 and 24, 140 between Taunton and New Bedford... none of them on yet.

Given that the above-link stating the activation of these signs is dated this May 3 (yesterday), you wouldn't have seen them turned on.

I-93 and US 3 north of Boston will use "NH State Line" on some signs, I-90 west of Boston will use "CT State Line VIA 84", and I-84 will use CT State Line." This is because, at present, adjoining states to Massachusetts don't have a compatible travel time system. If/when that happens, then you'll see those 'state line' destinations changed to actual cities.

I-93 and US 3 north of Boston will use "NH State Line" on some signs, I-90 west of Boston will use "CT State Line VIA 84", and I-84 will use CT State Line." This is because, at present, adjoining states to Massachusetts don't have a compatible travel time system. If/when that happens, then you'll see those 'state line' destinations changed to actual cities.

The entire Northeast and Midwest should have compatible travel time systems. Cities and major junctions are spaced closely enough for it to work.

MassDOT announces activation of 'Go Time' Real Time Traffic signs along MA 140 in the Taunton area. Signs on I-95 and I-495 to be activated this summer:http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/massdot-highway/massdot-launches-go-time-real-time-traffic-information/)

I have seen these now on 95/128 in Waltham, 95 between Canton and Mansfield, 495 around 95 and 24, 140 between Taunton and New Bedford... none of them on yet.

Given that the above-link stating the activation of these signs is dated this May 3 (yesterday), you wouldn't have seen them turned on.

I-93 and US 3 north of Boston will use "NH State Line" on some signs, I-90 west of Boston will use "CT State Line VIA 84", and I-84 will use CT State Line." This is because, at present, adjoining states to Massachusetts don't have a compatible travel time system. If/when that happens, then you'll see those 'state line' destinations changed to actual cities.

The exception is the last Westbound sign on the Turnpike, which will say "NY Thruway" instead.

I-93 and US 3 north of Boston will use "NH State Line" on some signs, I-90 west of Boston will use "CT State Line VIA 84", and I-84 will use CT State Line." This is because, at present, adjoining states to Massachusetts don't have a compatible travel time system. If/when that happens, then you'll see those 'state line' destinations changed to actual cities.

The exception is the last Westbound sign on the Turnpike, which will say "NY Thruway" instead.

That's because the pull thru signs at the end of the Turnpike state NY Thruway. It's a logical exception to the "name the next state line" practice on other signs.

Also, the sign on US 3 N right after exit 26 has mysteriously vanished. It was there the other day, now it's completely gone, including the signposts. The other RTT signs are still up. Where it went, I have no idea.

Also, the sign on US 3 N right after exit 26 has mysteriously vanished. It was there the other day, now it's completely gone, including the signposts. The other RTT signs are still up. Where it went, I have no idea.

No, this particular installation was not retracted. That location was one of a handful of new signs on US 3 that seemed to be mounted on posts that were excessively high in relation to the roadway. I suspect that's the reason the sign and posts were removed for now.

I see that in Peabody, MA they have a jersey jughandle just north of I-95 (MA 128) providing the only signal along that stretch of US 1.

I also see that most of US 1 in that area is designed like a jersey freeway with sealed medians, interchanges with major crossroads, and RIRO for driveways and side streets.

Interesting to see that NJ is not the only one to make expressways out of arterials.

The famous jughandle has been there a long time, and was arguably one of the few traffic lights on an Interstate back before the link between I-95 and 128 in Peabody was completed in 1988...southbound US 1 carried I-95 SB from 95's Exit 46 (which had no number at first, but all traffic defaulted onto US 1) to the 128 exit, but the right lane for the exit had an always-green signal whereas the left and center lanes would see red to let jughandle traffic in. So I-95 SB did have a traffic light, but the lane I-95 SB traffic would be in never saw a red light. However, if you were following 95 SB and had not yet moved to the right, it was conceivable that you could hit the red light before getting over to the right, as the right exit lane started not long before the light.

I-95 NB traffic using US 1 to make the connection by the missing link never saw a traffic light; it merged in north of the jughandle.

The stretch of US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers, part freeway, the rest expressway, would be nice to assign exit numbers to--although it seems that it won't happen. They finally did get BGS installed for all the exits in the 90s (except Walnut Street, for whatever reason); they could top them with exit numbers easily if they don't want to replace the panels. Why not do it if short freeway sections of other routes like route 57 get exit numbers? Just something that seems like it would be reasonable.Maybe when the panels are next replaced, they could add numbers--but I doubt they do.

The stretch of US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers, part freeway, the rest expressway, would be nice to assign exit numbers to--although it seems that it won't happen. They finally did get BGS installed for all the exits in the 90s (except Walnut Street, for whatever reason); they could top them with exit numbers easily if they don't want to replace the panels. Why not do it if short freeway sections of other routes like route 57 get exit numbers? Just something that seems like it would be reasonable.Maybe when the panels are next replaced, they could add numbers--but I doubt they do.

This subject has been brought up before. The signs along US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers are scheduled to be replaced starting in late 2019. Roadman posted that there are no plans to add exit numbers, either under the milepost exit conversion project or that project (Project 608206).

The stretch of US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers, part freeway, the rest expressway, would be nice to assign exit numbers to--although it seems that it won't happen. They finally did get BGS installed for all the exits in the 90s (except Walnut Street, for whatever reason); they could top them with exit numbers easily if they don't want to replace the panels. Why not do it if short freeway sections of other routes like route 57 get exit numbers? Just something that seems like it would be reasonable.Maybe when the panels are next replaced, they could add numbers--but I doubt they do.

This subject has been brought up before. The signs along US 1 from Chelsea to Danvers are scheduled to be replaced starting in late 2019. Roadman posted that there are no plans to add exit numbers, either under the milepost exit conversion project or that project (Project 608206).

Yep--that's where I had read such before. Kinda a bummer to not add exit numbers really, though--there is the freeway portion from the Tobin Bridge to Cutler Circle which really ought to have them, and then northward to Alfalfa Circle might as well get them since there are signed exits and BGSs for the signed exits. Would just make sense. I mean, if Ohio can randomly have Exits 81A-B on US 20 which is otherwise undivided and two-lane around the area because it widens to 4-lane divided and has interchanges with route 420 and a local road, US 1 could have exit numbers from Chelsea to Danvers. It wouldn't look any sillier than this. (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4948982,-83.4715882,3a,66.8y,106.27h,91.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOZDuCjw-2cfKdv_ddTqI6Q!2e0)..it would actually be quite in-place.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: 1 on May 30, 2016, 08:30:02 AM

I-95/MA 128 between exits 33 and 38 has a lot of traffic going north (actually east) between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM. I was thinking of fixing this in several ways, but I'm not sure if these are possible or if these would really work.

These are independent ideas; it is not a list of "we need to do all of these". One might be enough.

1. Add a fourth lane past exit 38, as the road narrows from 4 to 3 lanes.2. Connect Burlington Mall Rd. (32B-33 parallel) to Beacon St. (34-35 parallel) to create a better parallel road.3. New Boston St. in Woburn has two sections separated by a railroad. Connect them to create another alternate.4. Increase the speed limit from 55 to 65. As congestion often starts by a single slow driver (I believe it was jeffandnicole who said this, but I'm not sure), increasing the speed limit means the slow drivers (like those following the speed limit in the left lane) won't be as slow.5. Direct access from Washington St. in Woburn to I-93 south without having to get on MA 128.6. A way for those coming from I-93 north and exiting at MA 28 to not have to enter the main lanes of MA 128, as the entrance ramp and exit ramp are only 500 feet apart.

the small US 5 Freeway in West Springfield also seems like its not getting exit numbers.

Also I have a few questions regarding the green signs in MA, there appears to be a few variations I've noticed.

1)Theres the center tab signs that are one piece and are fully reflective (that Exit 29 and Exit 30 sign bridge just before the RI border on I-95)2)There is the left or right aligned tab signs that are button copy, those seemed to only be on I-93 and on the pike3)There is the left or right aligned tab signs that are fully reflective4)Theres the full height tab signs (the ones that look like NH standard) which came about in 2010

did the rest of the state ever use the second variant, or was that mostly in the Boston area on I-93?When did they move from type 1 to type 2 and 3.

2)There is the left or right aligned tab signs that are button copy, those seemed to only be on I-93 and on the pike

All the BGS' with button-copy text (as opposed to the I-shields) along the Southeast Expressway portion of I-93 have since been replaced. Those dated back to 1984-85 and were installed when the Expressway was completely overhauled.

The bid opening on the second phase of the I-93/I-95 Canton interchange project, the building of new ramps on I-95 North at Dedham street, and reconstruction of 5 other bridges has been postponed again, for the fifth time. The new date is now July 26. The latest addendum has revised plans for framing and beam details. The bid page is located at: https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-16-1030-0H100-0H002-00000005592&external=true&parentUrl=bid

Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Where are you seeing 55 on a surface road in Massachusetts?

US 7 from the CT border to Sheffield is 55 MPHhttps://goo.gl/maps/cg1bD1iMf422

Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Where are you seeing 55 on a surface road in Massachusetts?

US 7 from the CT border to Sheffield is 55 MPHhttps://goo.gl/maps/cg1bD1iMf422

There are quite a few in Berskhire County. A decent amount of US 7 between Pittsfield and Williamstown is 55, as is MA 43 in Hancock south/west of the town hall. I remember seeing it in a couple spots on MA 8 when I drove it last week.

Those curve speed limits have come to define driving in MA for me, to the point where it's tempting to avoid the surface streets in MA. I've read that they're not posted like that because the state police was mad when a judge told them they couldn't give people tickets for driving faster than an advisory speed.

Why are the speed limits on various MA state very inconsistent and have unnecessary speed limit changes? It'll be 50 mph for 100 yards then up to 55 for 50 yards then back to 50, then down to 40, when there aren't even any houses or buildings within the area.

Where are you seeing 55 on a surface road in Massachusetts?

MA 9, US 6, MA 49 and MA 88 (to name a few) also have 55mph zones for all or part of their surface routes.

they have something like that on the north end of I-290, its 65 and then suddenly it drops to 45mph before the interchange with I-495, granted the curve is tight but its only an advisory speed of 25 not a speed limit of 25 on that ramp.

I have posted a few more photos of the new 'Go Time' travel distance and time signs being put up by MassDOT. This one on US 3 South in Burlington has gotten the most comments since it lacks the 'Via I-95 South/North' texts seen on other signs:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us3sign616e.JPG)

All the new photos are in the I-95 and US 3 sections of Part B at:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)

Also here's the latest photo of the future on-ramp from Kendrick Street to I-95/128 North in Needham:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95addalane616f.jpg)

More new I-95 Add-A-Lane Project photos are at:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i95photos.html#addalane)(as well as a few misc. ones at the top of the page).

Bids were opened on the I-495 Raynham to Bolton sign replacement project earlier today. RoadSafe Traffic Systems of Avon, MA is the apparent low responsible bidder.

Sorry if you've already covered this upthread -- is this going to include exit renumbering?

The project was designed to use milepost-based exit numbers, but that may change. From the project addenda # 1:

Quote

ITEM 828.1 OVERHEAD GUIDE SIGN - SQUARE FOOTALUMINUM PANEL (TYPE B)The work under this item shall conform to the relevant provisions of Section 828 of the StandardSpecifications and the following:Legend, border, and background of signs shall be High Intensity Prismatic (HIP) retrotreflectivesheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better, except that the bannersindicating TOLL ROAD”, “EXIT ONLY”, etc. shall be fabricated with black opaque legend onyellow retro-reflective sheeting conforming to ASTM D4956-11a Type VIII or better. . The project plans and details for these sign panels presume that the existing exit numbers withinthe project limits will be converted from the present sequential numbers to a referenced-based(milepost) numbering system. However, the Contractor is advised that this conversion may nowbe deferred until a later date. Accordingly, while the new exit number plates (tabs), gore, andother signs shall be fabricated of sufficient width to accommodate the future exit numbers, theContractor may be directed to provide the current sequential exit numbers on new signs for now.MassDOT shall inform the Contractor of which numbering scheme to use on new signs prior tosubmission of the sign face drawings for review and approval. (language added in Addenda # 1 - emphasis added)METHOD OF MEASUREMENTItem 828.1 will be measured for payment buy the square foot, complete in place,BASIS OF PAYMENTItem 828.1 will be paid for at the Contract unit price per square foot, which price shall includefurnishing and installing all materials, labor, equipment tools, appurtenances, and incidentalsnecessary to satisfactorily complete the item of work, complete, in place and accepted.

A little birdie (no, not Twitter) told me this language was added as a result of the backlash from the US 6 preliminary design plans.

A follow-up, MassDOT gave the notice to proceed for the I-495 sign replacement contract on Monday (6/13). Guess it may be a few months before it is known what exit numbers will be used for the new signs.

speaking of sign replacements, all but one or two signs on MA Route 2 are new from I-495 to the end of the freeway, including the akward older style ones. I drove it from 495 to Greenfield earlier today.

these ones, with the exit number printed way too low on the sign and it looks like they slapped it on wierdly

Because they did, because the exit panel was an afterthought.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on June 20, 2016, 11:52:59 PM

Yeah, I noticed MassDOT had a bunch of new stuff up when I was through yesterday. A lot of new-looking assemblies on I-91 SB between the Vermont border and the Mohawk Trail. Button copy I-91 shields do remain.

Got a chance to drive along the southern stretch of I-495 between Milford and Wareham this weekend. Was able to take photos of some of the new MassDOT 'Go Time' travel time signs, such as this southbound approaching I-95 in Foxboro:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i495signs616f.JPG)

Other photos can be found here:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#i495signs (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#i495signs)

I also have new photos of some of the signs installed along US 3 and MA 128.

MassDOT has released its Draft 2017-2021 State TIP for public comment (available at: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/STIP/StipDraft17_21.pdf (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/17/docs/STIP/StipDraft17_21.pdf))

As for new sign replacement projects listed, FY 2020 includes:MA 146 Uxbridge to WorcesterI-391 between Chicopee and Holyoke (all of it), andSections of I-495 and I-195 between Dartmouth and Raynham.For 2021 the only project listed is replacing the signs on US 3 from Burlington to Tyngsboro. Previously listed projects for 2017-2019 are still there: MA 24, from Randolph to I-195 (2017), I-95 from Attleboro to Norwood (2018), and Reading to Lynnfield (2019), I-290 Auburn to Worcester (2018), US 1 Chelsea to Danvers (2019), I-495 Haverhill to Merrimac (2019), and, perhaps new, MA 28 Bourne to Falmouth (2019).

There is no mention of the US 6 sign replacement contract or the milepost conversion project, the latter was listed as a statewide project for 2016 in the previous STIP. If this has been postponed, and is not included in the final document, then it appears any changes will now not take place until after 2021.

If they don't just bite the bullet and do the conversion, it will never happen. Public opinion is not going to change on this issue any time soon, so either they do it and everyone just has to adapt to the changes or they don't do it and anger the feds but keep everyone happy. They can't just play this game of cat and mouse and wait for public opinion to change because they will never have public support on the milepost conversion issue.

If public opinion will never change then shouldn't they listen to it? Sometimes traffic engineers forget their duty is to the public and that includes listening to public feedback even if it goes against their academic theory. Someone needs to do an intrinsic cost benefit analysis and if resident concerns regarding rural character, nostalgia, business advertising change costs, etc. are more important than some person without GPS wondering how many miles it is to their next exit then maybe they should just bite the bullet and give in to the public demand. To be honest the whole benefit of this exit number change thing is really diminished nowadays which is why the average person out there just doesn't get it. Either you are familiar with the area and you really don't need the exit-mileage information or you don't live around there and you have gps. I would liken it to food and gas service signs which are similarly becoming obsolete.

If public opinion will never change then shouldn't they listen to it? Sometimes traffic engineers forget their duty is to the public and that includes listening to public feedback even if it goes against their academic theory. Someone needs to do an intrinsic cost benefit analysis and if resident concerns regarding rural character, nostalgia, business advertising change costs, etc. are more important than some person without GPS wondering how many miles it is to their next exit then maybe they should just bite the bullet and give in to the public demand. To be honest the whole benefit of this exit number change thing is really diminished nowadays which is why the average person out there just doesn't get it. Either you are familiar with the area and you really don't need the exit-mileage information or you don't live around there and you have gps. I would liken it to food and gas service signs which are similarly becoming obsolete.

Some might say that. I'm just saying MassDOT should make up their minds on it, decide to or decide not to. Personally, I would like it to happen but I wouldn't have a huge problem with them keeping the current numbers. I do hope that they would continue with the plan to add numbers to MA-28 and MA-57, but it seems unlikely unless they decide to go for mileage-based.

If public opinion will never change then shouldn't they listen to it? Sometimes traffic engineers forget their duty is to the public and that includes listening to public feedback even if it goes against their academic theory. Someone needs to do an intrinsic cost benefit analysis and if resident concerns regarding rural character, nostalgia, business advertising change costs, etc. are more important than some person without GPS wondering how many miles it is to their next exit then maybe they should just bite the bullet and give in to the public demand. To be honest the whole benefit of this exit number change thing is really diminished nowadays which is why the average person out there just doesn't get it. Either you are familiar with the area and you really don't need the exit-mileage information or you don't live around there and you have gps. I would liken it to food and gas service signs which are similarly becoming obsolete.

Some might say that. I'm just saying MassDOT should make up their minds on it, decide to or decide not to. Personally, I would like it to happen but I wouldn't have a huge problem with them keeping the current numbers. I do hope that they would continue with the plan to add numbers to MA-28 and MA-57, but it seems unlikely unless they decide to go for mileage-based.

Do people honestly care enough about either of those two highways to want exit numbers?

On 28 most people are going straight through to Falmouth. On 57 everyone takes "the exit for Six Flags".

Something odd I just noticed, crossing over the Deefield River on I-91 North in Franklin County: on either side of the reconstructed Deerfield River bridge, they installed some 1/10 mile markers. They look just like ones further up the interstate in Vermont. The road is also repaved up to about mile marker 40, a good mile north of the bridge.

EDIT: The mile markers looked like the Vermont version. This is from the I-91 overpass in White River Junction, where US Route 5 passes under. This is a short distance north of the I-89 junction:

The "Vermont version" is actually the standard MUTCD version. It is my understanding that many jurisdictions are replacing their tenth mile markers with either these or the "enhanced" version with the shield and direction on them.

The "Vermont version" is actually the standard MUTCD version. It is my understanding that many jurisdictions are replacing their tenth mile markers with either these or the "enhanced" version with the shield and direction on them.

Correct. Ohio and Kentucky have had them in urban areas for a while, except they were blue and almost always in the medians. NYSDOT R5 and R9 have mostly replaced theirs and I'm pretty sure I remember seeing them in R3. R1s still look like the ones in the picture above (old ones have the tenth in green on white, oldest without decimal points).

R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway. R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers). R8 just changed the color on their markers. No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style. R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

Drove I-495 from the Mass Pike up to I-93 earlier today. Noticed the construction that was going on last year northbound at MA 2 resulted in creation of a c/d lane. Construction crews had the left lane blocked in each direction, which caused a minimum backup for me northbound, but a substantial backup southbound. New signage is in place as well through the interchange. Didn't get any shots of the signage, though. It kinda snuck up on me!

R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway. R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers). R8 just changed the color on their markers. No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style. R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

R7 switched to the new style for their markers. R8 just installed tenth mile markers on I-84 to replace the NYSTA ones and they are their standard style. Driving through yesterday, I noticed that they put in RMs and tenth mile markers east of the Taconic.

As far as other states, CT uses the enhanced style for full miles now. Saw a few on CT 8 yesterday after clinching MA 8.

R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway. R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers). R8 just changed the color on their markers. No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style. R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

R7 switched to the new style for their markers. R8 just installed tenth mile markers on I-84 to replace the NYSTA ones and they are their standard style. Driving through yesterday, I noticed that they put in RMs and tenth mile markers east of the Taconic.

As far as other states, CT uses the enhanced style for full miles now. Saw a few on CT 8 yesterday after clinching MA 8.

Given a couple of key retirements in Region 4 in the past couple of years, Region 4 has no idea what it's doing! (personal opinion expressed)

At least they've jumped on the FYA train and are keeping up with the MUTCD. R5 just stopped using four-section bimodal arrows.

Does R7 now use tenth mile markers? I only remember them having full mile markers when I was last there, which have been in the "enhanced" style for years now (since I was in high school, actually). Almost all the regions have at least one enhanced full milemarker somewhere; of the regions that don't, Region 6 is the only one that has milemarkers period.

R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway. R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers). R8 just changed the color on their markers. No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style. R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

R7 switched to the new style for their markers. R8 just installed tenth mile markers on I-84 to replace the NYSTA ones and they are their standard style. Driving through yesterday, I noticed that they put in RMs and tenth mile markers east of the Taconic.

As far as other states, CT uses the enhanced style for full miles now. Saw a few on CT 8 yesterday after clinching MA 8.

Given a couple of key retirements in Region 4 in the past couple of years, Region 4 has no idea what it's doing! (personal opinion expressed)

At least they've jumped on the FYA train and are keeping up with the MUTCD. R5 just stopped using four-section bimodal arrows.

Does R7 now use tenth mile markers? I only remember them having full mile markers when I was last there, which have been in the "enhanced" style for years now (since I was in high school, actually). Almost all the regions have at least one enhanced full milemarker somewhere; of the regions that don't, Region 6 is the only one that has milemarkers period.

Not that I know of, but few rural areas do in this country. Only region that does is R5, which has them on I-86. Hell, R1's stop at the Warren-Saratoga line and it's still bedroom community for a few miles.

not to be that guy but could we leave the NY discussion out of the MA thread? I am getting alerts to updates on this thread only to find that its about NY.

Thanks

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: cl94 on July 19, 2016, 02:24:53 PM

I have a question: does MassDOT have any standards regarding speed limit changes? I was on Route 8 the other day and there were a couple sections where the limit changed 3-4 times in a mile, with no advanced warning for any of them, even drops of 20+.

I have a question: does MassDOT have any standards regarding speed limit changes? I was on Route 8 the other day and there were a couple sections where the limit changed 3-4 times in a mile, with no advanced warning for any of them, even drops of 20+.

This should answer your questions: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/speedZoning_0512.pdf

R1 is using the standard MUTCD markers and reserving the "enhanced" ones for full miles on the Northway. R3, R5, and R9 use the enhanced tenths (R5 switched to them; R3 had a blue version; R9 previously didn't use tenth mile markers). R8 just changed the color on their markers. No idea what R4 is doing; many tenth mile markers are missing, but I may have seen a few new ones in their traditional style. R6 and R7 don't use tenth mile markers and R2, R10, and R11 don't use any mile markers at all.

R7 switched to the new style for their markers. R8 just installed tenth mile markers on I-84 to replace the NYSTA ones and they are their standard style. Driving through yesterday, I noticed that they put in RMs and tenth mile markers east of the Taconic.

As far as other states, CT uses the enhanced style for full miles now. Saw a few on CT 8 yesterday after clinching MA 8.

Given a couple of key retirements in Region 4 in the past couple of years, Region 4 has no idea what it's doing! (personal opinion expressed)

At least they've jumped on the FYA train and are keeping up with the MUTCD. R5 just stopped using four-section bimodal arrows.

Does R7 now use tenth mile markers? I only remember them having full mile markers when I was last there, which have been in the "enhanced" style for years now (since I was in high school, actually). Almost all the regions have at least one enhanced full milemarker somewhere; of the regions that don't, Region 6 is the only one that has milemarkers period.

Not that I know of, but few rural areas do in this country. Only region that does is R5, which has them on I-86. Hell, R1's stop at the Warren-Saratoga line and it's still bedroom community for a few miles.

One last reply (as per mass_citizen): R4 has them in rural areas (as does the Thruway, Taconic (except Columbia County), and I-84; I-81 in R9 now has half mile markers).

I have a question: does MassDOT have any standards regarding speed limit changes? I was on Route 8 the other day and there were a couple sections where the limit changed 3-4 times in a mile, with no advanced warning for any of them, even drops of 20+.

Yes. Every time an advisory speed should be posted, expect a speed limit.

Sorry this totally diverges from the topic at hand, but the I-93 Exit 46 Methuen Rotary reconstruction is moving along quite well. As of yesterday afternoon, some signs were installed and are uncovered, and that combined with paving being worked on, traffic lights being installed, and new signage posts with every day's changes being predictable but unpredictable, leads me to think that at least one ramp will be opening very soon (maybe in the next 7 days) with a good portion done by the end of the summer. A portable VMS that was just brought in saying "New I-93 Onramp - Opening Soon" further enhances this, and the MassDOT site says one of the activities is to open the new NB on-ramp but it looks like the SB on-ramp from 110/113 East is also very close. There was also a sign that is brand new posted on 113 East that I couldn't get a photo of, and various masts are being assembled. Right now it seems to be at a "something new daily" pace that will probably culminate in a massive traffic jam the day a new ramp opens, particularly the new NB on-ramp. I'll divide my video into further pics soon but this is 110 EB as 113 EB merges with it.

Hopefully I can confirm but that pic looks different than the setup from my video last night

@1:36 - Same signs, different angle in video.

I know those are the same signs, but it appears some traffic cones were put in the middle of the current (now old?) alignment. The right lane was clearly not half blocked off in the video yesterday. I might be headed up that way today and if I do, I'll pull out my camera again. At just prior to 1:36, you can see two lanes are open, but in Officer Lever's photo, that right lane is clearly coned over as a temporary access to what looks like the new EB to SB ramp.

More to come, but they are doing a really good job at keeping traffic normal throughout much of the project.

(UPDATE 5:48 pm: No new ramps open, but a small portion of new pavement did open that makes "new traffic pattern" accurate. Video soon.)

Hopefully I can confirm but that pic looks different than the setup from my video last night

@1:36 - Same signs, different angle in video.

I know those are the same signs, but it appears some traffic cones were put in the middle of the current (now old?) alignment. The right lane was clearly not half blocked off in the video yesterday. I might be headed up that way today and if I do, I'll pull out my camera again. At just prior to 1:36, you can see two lanes are open, but in Officer Lever's photo, that right lane is clearly coned over as a temporary access to what looks like the new EB to SB ramp.

More to come, but they are doing a really good job at keeping traffic normal throughout much of the project.

(UPDATE 5:48 pm: No new ramps open, but a small portion of new pavement did open that makes "new traffic pattern" accurate. Video soon.)

Based on the video, I see the first I-93 travel time sign southbound has been installed as well.

Hopefully I can confirm but that pic looks different than the setup from my video last night

@1:36 - Same signs, different angle in video.

I know those are the same signs, but it appears some traffic cones were put in the middle of the current (now old?) alignment. The right lane was clearly not half blocked off in the video yesterday. I might be headed up that way today and if I do, I'll pull out my camera again. At just prior to 1:36, you can see two lanes are open, but in Officer Lever's photo, that right lane is clearly coned over as a temporary access to what looks like the new EB to SB ramp.

More to come, but they are doing a really good job at keeping traffic normal throughout much of the project.

(UPDATE 5:48 pm: No new ramps open, but a small portion of new pavement did open that makes "new traffic pattern" accurate. Video soon.)

Based on the video, I see the first I-93 travel time sign southbound has been installed as well.

Yes, that is the case. It's been there for a few weeks now.

BREAKING NEWS - PROJECT UPDATE - 6:30 PM: Per MassDOT the new northbound onramp opens July 30. Otherwise, the rotary alignment stays the same for now. VMS's will be put up east and west of the rotary to alert drivers. http://methuenrotary.mhd.state.ma.us/

So, the new 93 NB on-ramp at Exit 46 in Methuen opened this morning. There are numerous VMS's in the area to guide drivers to the new ramp. Temporary signals at the end of the underpasses with new road going under 93 indicate many new sections will likely be opening in the coming months (access to SB from WB and WB from NB while clover ramps are being built?)

nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.

Yeah, those are temporary. The permanent new entrance to 93NB opens this month - the ramp itself and access from 110/113 WB stays the same but access from 110/113 EB changes. Also, the new SB on-ramp opens this month. MassDOT just posted on the project site that the rotary permanently closes this month and traffic will go straight under I-93.

Should a thread be opened specifically to discuss the Methuen Rotary project?

nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.

Not to mention the horizontal arrow plate that's tilted upward at 45 degrees. I know it's all temporary, but geez ...

I was at the rotary earlier today and that arrow is now straight up and not tilted. Still, my grandmother yesterday got confused attempting to head to the beach. 93NB offramp traffic that wants WB 110/113 has to weave quickly with those on 110/113 EB who are looking to proceed toward the split of those two roads. Nonetheless, there are virtually daily changes there leading up to the opening of the realigned 110/113 and with it the SB off-ramp (potentially the EB to SB on-ramp too as that looks to be nearing completion, but even if that is not the case it is easy to put up jersey barriers to direct drivers to the existing SB onramp. The MassDOT update this morning said, as I noted, the 93SB offramp and the realigned 110/113 opens to traffic this month; MassDOT will probably make a formal announcement soon about what day they open. I hope it's a Saturday or Sunday morning but even so, traffic will be horrible there for a few days as everyone gets adjusted.

nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.

Not to mention the horizontal arrow plate that's tilted upward at 45 degrees. I know it's all temporary, but geez ...

I was at the rotary earlier today and that arrow is now straight up and not tilted.

My comment was referring to the arrow on the left side route assembly just before the entrance ramp to I-93 north. If that arrow has been "fixed" so that it's now straight up, that's going to confuse a lot of people.

nice mismatch of colors in that video with the black on orange arrows, black on white cardinal directions, and blue interstate shields for those I-93 assemblies.

Not to mention the horizontal arrow plate that's tilted upward at 45 degrees. I know it's all temporary, but geez ...

I was at the rotary earlier today and that arrow is now straight up and not tilted.

My comment was referring to the arrow on the left side route assembly just before the entrance ramp to I-93 north. If that arrow has been "fixed" so that it's now straight up, that's going to confuse a lot of people.

Not that one. The one before it is what I refer to, which I now realize was never at a 45 degree angle.

Coming south on I-93 Saturday morning, I noted that the portable VMS just before the exit indicated that the new pattern for Exit 48 will be implemented on August 13th.

Yes, I just saw on the MassDOT project site that the new SB off ramp opens (at exit 46, not 48) on Saturday but the rotary still exists otherwise, but there is a major pattern change associated with the new ramp on the west side of the rotary. http://methuenrotary.mhd.state.ma.us/updates/traffic.aspx

Coming south on I-93 Saturday morning, I noted that the portable VMS just before the exit indicated that the new pattern for Exit 48 will be implemented on August 13th.

Yes, I just saw on the MassDOT project site that the new SB off ramp opens (at exit 46, not 48) on Saturday but the rotary still exists otherwise, but there is a major pattern change associated with the new ramp on the west side of the rotary. http://methuenrotary.mhd.state.ma.us/updates/traffic.aspx

Thanks for posting that - I've been busy with drivers ed classroom course all week and haven't been able to post (I noticed this on Monday evening when it was posted to the project site but was busy with other things). The new SB off ramp opened on Saturday afternoon and works well. I just hope Google Maps, etc. get the new alignment down quickly.

I'll get a video out of the new alignment when it opens Saturday. This whole project is impressive and seemed surreal until it became real with all the construction... I can't wait until I'm able to drive on it. Won't be long now! The Aug. 20 opening will probably be one of my last trips through the area before I can get my permit on Aug. 29, although not only will I likely wait a few days to get said permit but also I might avoid the area of the construction at first until I am more experienced on local roads, and then advance to going through work zones and eventually highways.

MassDOT will be opening a set of new ramps along I-95/128 at Kendrick Street in the Add-A-Lane work zone tonight. Traffic northbound will be able to access Kendrick Street directly, there will also be a new on-ramp to I-95/128 South. Details can be found through this link (the Exit number indicated is not quite right, it will be Exit 19A). The remaining parts of the reworked Highland Avenue/Kendrick St. interchange won't open until the end of 2018: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesley/advisory_KendrickSt_081916.pdf (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesley/advisory_KendrickSt_081916.pdf)

MassDOT will be opening a set of new ramps along I-95/128 at Kendrick Street in the Add-A-Lane work zone tonight. Traffic northbound will be able to access Kendrick Street directly, there will also be a new on-ramp to I-95/128 South. Details can be found through this link (the Exit number indicated is not quite right, it will be Exit 19A). The remaining parts of the reworked Highland Avenue/Kendrick St. interchange won't open until the end of 2018: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesley/advisory_KendrickSt_081916.pdf (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/HighlightedProjects/NeedhamWellesley/advisory_KendrickSt_081916.pdf)

Since Exit 19A already exists (Highland Ave. eastbound); numbering Kendrick St. as either Exit 18A or 19 (per the attached pdf) would make more sense. Granted, such will likely be short-lived due to the upcoming interchange number conversions to mile-marker-based ones.

Kendrick St. would become Exit 34 & the Highland Ave. exits (current Exits 19A-B) would become Exits 35A-B.

The new Methuen Rotary alignment opened yesterday. Cue many people in the area, my family included (and likely myself for a bit) call the interchange something it's not (a rotary). Next up is to do the WB to SB and NB to WB loop ramps, which will be opening in the next year. The project website indicates the SB on-ramp opens by November and the NB on-ramp by August 2017 but they may end up being reversed in their timing based on existing work and work still to be done, but they have largely adhered to the schedule so we'll see.

The first part of the video is at 11:30 AM yesterday when half of the new alignment opened (WB) but half (EB) did not making for a huge mess. The second half is when all new alignments that were set to open yesterday were open, by 2 PM: less of a mess than earlier in the day.

MassDOT is going all out with the FYAs. Every PPLT I know of on a state-maintained road in Berkshire County has been converted to a FYA. Most have a supplemental sign stating "left turn yield on flashing [yellow arrow illustration]" and most have a supplemental FYA signal head that is pole-mounted on the opposite corner of the intersection.

MassDOT is going all out with the FYAs. Every PPLT I know of on a state-maintained road in Berkshire County has been converted to a FYA. Most have a supplemental sign stating "left turn yield on flashing [yellow arrow illustration]" and most have a supplemental FYA signal head that is pole-mounted on the opposite corner of the intersection.

I saw FYA, 2 actually and at one, a driver blew right through it. I bet he thought "oh i have an arrow" I can make it. There was no supplemental sign with it. It was somewhere in Auburn.

Speaking of MassDOT and signaling projects - apparently MassDOT needs to update the Seekonk page if there are any additional future projects. They still list the Baker's Four Corners intersection project, even though it's been done for a while now. On the other hand, this one is still in progress:https://hwy.massdot.state.ma.us/ProjectInfo/Main.asp?ACTION=ViewProject&PROJECT_NO=602615

One thing I've noticed in Massachusetts is that I-495 vanishes into thin air at its junction with I-195. Has there ever been any talk of extending a highway segment east to Sagamore Beach, or upgrading U.S. 44 and aligning I-495 on it to Plymouth? Just curious.

they should extend 495 along the MA 25 freeway, that should fix that wierd 3 way ending they have right now where 25 195 and 495 all end at eachother.

Or even simpler, extend I-195 east over MA 25 to the Bourne Bridge. That way, you'd only have to change mile markers/exit numbers on the MA 25 portion. Extending I-495 "southward" would create some 90+ miles of renumbered exits and adjusting mileage.

Or even simpler, extend I-195 east over MA 25 to the Bourne Bridge. That way, you'd only have to change mile markers/exit numbers on the MA 25 portion. Extending I-495 "southward" would create some 90+120 miles of renumbered exits and adjusting mileage.

FTFY :sombrero:

I do agree with your suggestion but would even go further as towards eliminating the MA 25 designation along that highway stretch (with the option to have MA 25 go back to its original corridor (current MA 225)).

they should extend 495 along the MA 25 freeway, that should fix that wierd 3 way ending they have right now where 25 195 and 495 all end at eachother.

Or even simpler, extend I-195 east over MA 25 to the Bourne Bridge. That way, you'd only have to change mile markers/exit numbers on the MA 25 portion. Extending I-495 "southward" would create some 90+ miles of renumbered exits and adjusting mileage.

Let's reconcile the Fictional discussion to something real: Why wasn't MA 25 included in the Interstate highway network? Is it because it was generated later than I-495 and no one wanted to renumber exits? I-195 isn't the through road, so maybe that's why 195 doesn't go that way.

EDIT: The 1986 topo map available in Historic Aerials puts an I-495 shield with MA 25 as it's Under Construction. So maybe it was considered and rejected for the reasons above.

Let's reconcile the Fictional discussion to something real: Why wasn't MA 25 included in the Interstate highway network? Is it because it was generated later than I-495 and no one wanted to renumber exits? I-195 isn't the through road, so maybe that's why 195 doesn't go that way.

IIRC, the portion of I-495 between I-95 & MA 24 that opened in the early 80s was originally planned to be a westerly extension of MA 25; which, back then (70s), ran from MA 24 in Bridgewater to US 6/MA 28 (current Exit 2) in Wareham just east of I-195.

Both the existing stretch between I-195 & MA 24 and the then-unbuilt stretch between MA 24 & I-95 were added to the Interstate system (as I-495) when the originally-planned/proposed stretches of I-95 & 695 in the immediate Greater Boston area were cancelled by the early-to-mid 70s via an Interstate mileage trade.

Once the stretch between I-95 & MA 24 was completed circa 1982, I-495's interchanges were all renumbered (to the current ones) to reflect that change/extension to I-195 in Wareham (utilizing the existing MA 25 stretch east of MA 24).

As mentioned earlier & prior to 1988(?), MA 25 ended just east of I-195 at US 6/MA 28 (current Exit 2) in Wareham. Plans for an eastward extension date back to the 1960s (one proposal had an extension running all the way to MA 3 in Plymouth) but was continually delayed due to either NIMBYs or environmental concerns (mainly traversing through lucrative cranberry bogs) until the final extension was approved.

As towards the reason why all of MA 25 wasn't redesignated as an Interstate (be it 195 or 495); such may have been due either the then-unlikelihood of 25 ever being extended eastward (for the above-mentioned reasons) and/or there wasn't enough designated/allotted Interstate mileage available to be added or traded.

MA 25 is not up to interstate standards in several spots where the state compromised with cranberry growers to push the highway through, mainly relating to shoulder width and salt runoff. An 6 lane interstate through the corridor was pretty much impossible, a 6 lane state route freeway was the only real plausible solution.

MA 25 is not up to interstate standards in several spots where the state compromised with cranberry growers to push the highway through, mainly relating to shoulder width and salt runoff. An 6 lane interstate through the corridor was pretty much impossible, a 6 lane state route freeway was the only real plausible solution.

What part of MA-25 isn't up to standards? It's 6 lanes with full width shoulders, and the on/off-ramps all seem interstate standard with full acceleration/deceleration lanes.

The only part that wouldn't be up to Interstate quality is the Bourne Bridge, which is technically part of MA-28, not 25. It seems fully interstate-designation ready from 195/495 to exit 3 in Buzzards Bay.

All the signs are up along MA 3 from Bourne to Braintree, so these should be activated soon. Will be interesting to see if they post the planned signs in the I-95 Add-A-Lane work zone area in Needham, or wait until construction is complete. Planned signs are still needed to be placed along I-93 /SE Expressway at Neponset Circle (NB) and Mass Ave. (SB) before all the I-93 signs can be activated.

For those who may have not seen the placed signs to be activated along MA 24, go to:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#ma24signs (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html#ma24signs)

Some progress though. While both the Globe and TV news stories headlined the closure would be on 'Route 128' they did later often refer to the route as '128/I-95.' Perhaps someday they'll even report it as I-95/128...

Some progress though. While both the Globe and TV news stories headlined the closure would be on 'Route 128' they did later often refer to the route as '128/I-95.' Perhaps someday they'll even report it as I-95/128...

The announcer on WBZ radio Thursday morning stated "on Route 128. Or, if you prefer, 95."

MassDOT has activated their 'Go Time' (Real Time Traffic) signs along the MA 3 corridor from Braintree to Bourne. Here's one of the activated signs heading south after the MA 18 exit:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/ma3srttweymouth1016.jpg)

Images of other activated signs I took today can be found in the MA 3 and MA 24 sections of my Misc. Mass. Sign Photos page:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)

According to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated. They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.

According to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated. They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.

Meanwhile, the portable VMS sign with traffic times was still on just prior to the activated sign in the photo above.

According to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated. They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.

Nope, the trailer signs use a different activation system than the new permanent ones will.

According to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated. They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.

Nope, the trailer signs use a different activation system than the new permanent ones will.

Curious to know roadman, where do the portable signs get their info from?

According to a post on the BostonRoads Facebook group, a MassDOT spokesman indicates that most, if not all, of the signs should be activated by November.

I have a feeling the ones on I-93 north of Boston are probably within days of being activated. They may have already disconnected the sensor feeds to at least some of the trailer signs, as the one near the Park Street exit in Stoneham has been stuck at 7 MILES - 8 MINUTES for the last few days, regardless of traffic volume.

Nope, the trailer signs use a different activation system than the new permanent ones will.

Curious to know roadman, where do the portable signs get their info from?

The system the portable signs get their information from is similar to the Bluetooth/Bluetoad system being used for the permanent signs. However, the actual detection equipment for the portable signs is also portable. For future maintenance and reliability reasons, it would not be practical to re-use the portable detection system with the permanent signs.

It is unlikely the I-93 signs will be activated in their entirety any time soon since there are two signs along the SE Expressway in Boston yet to be placed. I did spot one sign on I-95 South in Needham that was partially activated last evening, but none of the others south of there were on.

The MassDOT Project Info page indicates that preliminary approval has been granted for five new sign replacement projects to take place between Winter 2019/20 and Summer 2021. The routes involved are: MA 28 Bourne to Falmouth (the milepost exit conversion contract assigned exit numbers to these exits, will exits be assigned if sequential numbers are continued to be used elsewhere?)I-195 and I-495 Dartmouth to Raynham (signs along both of these highways have been replaced in the past few years, are these for signs that were not replaced under the other contracts?)MA 146 Uxbridge to WorcesterUS 3 Burlington to TyngsboroI-391 Chicopee to Holyoke

There is also a project to replace signage along MA 1A from Boston to Revere whose 100% design plans were produced in September.

Made my first trip down I-91 today since Labor Day weekend. Where there were none before, there are now 3 real-time signs along I-91 SB that I observed. They snuck up on me, so only got pics of 2 of the signs. They're not active yet:

The lonely erroneous South US 3 reassurance marker on MA 3 after the MA 14 exit in Duxbury has now been joined by another one after the next exit, MA 3A to MA 53:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us3signerrorduxbury1016.JPG)

At this rate of sign replacement, maybe MA 3 will become US 3 in about 50-100 years...

Between CT state line and Exit 2, Longmeadow:(https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5752/30437260311_ca892e068d_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NnCV5c)IMG_2560 (https://flic.kr/p/NnCV5c) by Jay Hogan (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/), on Flickr

I wonder if the closure of I-95/Route 128 for removal of the Highland Avenue bridge in Needham is still scheduled for this weekend? I am surprised by the lack of advance notice other than news reports in late September. I would have expected there to be VMS messages posted on the highway at least a week in advance.

Driving the Pike west from Weston to Sturbridge before dawn on Sunday, the travel time signs were on. They had not been on Thursday.

The signs were activated Friday night in coordination with the start of the AET system. Here's the sign eastbound between Exits 13 and 14:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i90erttframingham1016b.jpg)

Eastbound I saw only one operational travel time sign this morning between Sturbridge and 128.

Are the guide signs on 84 set to be replaced? They're even less reflective at night than those on the Mass Pike.

The guide signs on I-84 at the Pike are being replaced under the West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project. The other guide signs between the CT line and US 20 were replaced in 2003.

The northbound ones south of the Mass Pike are barely legible when lit by few headlights in good weather. I hope they get replaced in the next round.

Are you referring to these at the gore (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1274327,-72.0649625,3a,75y,46.37h,71.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgo7DXeATvYPElfAp9hcmIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) or these just after the now-gone toll booths (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.126572,-72.0658364,3a,75y,38.9h,73.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st0GEoG30SXfx_zsaCDRs2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Note: the GSVs are from 2011 and show the signs in their better days.

IIRC, the BGS at the gore are older; which likely explains the fading & reduced reflectivity.

Eastbound I saw only one operational travel time sign this morning between Sturbridge and 128.

Are the guide signs on 84 set to be replaced? They're even less reflective at night than those on the Mass Pike.

The guide signs on I-84 at the Pike are being replaced under the West Stockbridge to Auburn sign replacement project. The other guide signs between the CT line and US 20 were replaced in 2003.

The northbound ones south of the Mass Pike are barely legible when lit by few headlights in good weather. I hope they get replaced in the next round.

Are you referring to these at the gore (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1274327,-72.0649625,3a,75y,46.37h,71.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgo7DXeATvYPElfAp9hcmIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) or these just after the now-gone toll booths (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.126572,-72.0658364,3a,75y,38.9h,73.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st0GEoG30SXfx_zsaCDRs2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Note: the GSVs are from 2011 and show the signs in their better days.

IIRC, the BGS at the gore are older; which likely explains the fading & reduced reflectivity.

Just north of the Connecticut line, exits 1 & 2. I rarely think about it after hundreds of times on that road, but I was there the other night in very light traffic and noticed how illegible they were at a distance.

Some progress though. While both the Globe and TV news stories headlined the closure would be on 'Route 128' they did later often refer to the route as '128/I-95.' Perhaps someday they'll even report it as I-95/128...

The announcer on WBZ radio Thursday morning stated "on Route 128. Or, if you prefer, 95."

The announcement of the Needham closure this weekend on WBUR included the phrase "Route 128, which some people call I-95."

This is very simple and easy to understand, but people devoted to arbitrary numbering conventions don't address the reason 128 holds on.

The public wants a way to specifically identify the big "C" that goes around Boston. Coming up with a new name when 128 is already understood to denote this discreet thing is more eyeroll-worthy than leaving the already well understood 128.

The public wants a way to specifically identify the big "C" that goes around Boston. Coming up with a new name when 128 is already understood to denote this discreet thing is more eyeroll-worthy than leaving the already well understood 128.

This. If you say "128", everyone knows what you mean. The road never had another widely-used name. It's just easier to keep calling it 128, numbering be damned.

Its not a case of the public being "wrong" it's more a case of traffic engineers being unhappy they are having trouble imposing their will on the driving public because they think they know what's best for them even when it comes to non-safety related issues...see the sequential numbering issue for a similar example.

I actually think the sequential numbering issue will go down easily if they ever just pulled the trigger. It's not the first time the state's renumbered things. The route 6 thing on the cape is different. If they took the 128 signs off after it was confirmed that there would never be 95 running through Boston, it would have transitioned easily enough.

If they took the 128 signs off after it was confirmed that there would never be 95 running through Boston, it would have transitioned easily enough.

Actually, once AASHO approved the revised I-95 routing along MA 128 between Canton and Peabody, MassDPW began changing 128 markers to 95 shields on BGS signs and route assemblies. About six months in, due to protests from legislators and local officials, the conversion was stopped. Where BGSes had been changed to I-95, MassDPW installed supplemental 128 assemblies. Where BGSes still stated 128, they installed supplemental I-95 assemblies. The use of I-95 on BGSes and LGSes and supplemental 128 assemblies wasn't standardized through the corridor until the sign replacement projects in the 1990s, when the FHWA regional office issued their directive that 128 would no longer appear on any green guide signs.

The lonely erroneous South US 3 reassurance marker on MA 3 after the MA 14 exit in Duxbury has now been joined by another one after the next exit, MA 3A to MA 53:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/us3signerrorduxbury1016.JPG)

At this rate of sign replacement, maybe MA 3 will become US 3 in about 50-100 years...

Update. I traveled past the location of the second US 3 sign on Sunday northbound. The US 3 shield has been replaced by a MA 3 one. Was not able to tell whether the first one had been switched as well.

It is unlikely the I-93 signs will be activated in their entirety any time soon since there are two signs along the SE Expressway in Boston yet to be placed. I did spot one sign on I-95 South in Needham that was partially activated last evening, but none of the others south of there were on.

From traveling around the Boston area this weekend, it appears most of the travel time signs have been activated, including on I-93. Here's the last I-93 sign southbound in Milton:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93srttmilton1116.jpg)

I have posted new photos taken of the Real Time Traffic signs along I-195 East and MA 3 on my Misc. Mass. Sign photos page, Section B:http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/miscsigns.html)

How many checks in the process are there from draft to manufacturing? And are the folks who install the signage illiterate? Wouldn't they alert someone to the fact that the sign was completely incorrect before erecting it? Signage mistakes like these boggle me.

How many checks in the process are there from draft to manufacturing? And are the folks who install the signage illiterate? Wouldn't they alert someone to the fact that the sign was completely incorrect before erecting it? Signage mistakes like these boggle me.

At MassDOT, there are at least two chances during the design process to catch guide sign legend errors - at the intermediate and final design reviews (guide sign specific projects - which the Faunce Corner Road work was not one of - offer an additional opportunity at the preliminary design stage). Once the project goes into construction, the final chance to catch a legend error is during review of the fabricator's sign face drawings. Assuming that both the original design plans and/or the initial or revised fabricator's drawings have correctly spelled and formatted legends, it is the final responsibility of the project resident engineer or their inspector/designee to verify that the legend on a finished sign is correct just before installation. http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/engineeringDirectives/2008/e-08-002.pdf

I have no knowledge of what internal procedures, if any, that MassDOT's approved sign fabricators may or may not have regarding QA/QC for fabricating sign panels. However, I would doubt that the laborers who actually install the signs would be tasked with final QA/QC, and should not be expected to perform this task.

I find the VMS minute numbers very difficult to read on these signs, both during the day and at night. The LEDs are not bright enough.

Completely agree. I was surprised again by this the other night. Needs tweaking.

I've been noticing the same thing. Apparently, the white LED displays (as opposed to the amber displays used on the signs on Cape Cod) are an MUTCD requirement for such "hybrid" signs - the rationale being so they can match the white sign lettering. In spite of this, personally, I think they should have stuck with amber for the current contract. Although one hopes MassDOT can make the white displays brighter, I suspect the result will be displays that are much harsher on the eyes at night than amber would have been.

I find the VMS minute numbers very difficult to read on these signs, both during the day and at night. The LEDs are not bright enough.

Completely agree. I was surprised again by this the other night. Needs tweaking.

I've been noticing the same thing. Apparently, the white LED displays (as opposed to the amber displays used on the signs on Cape Cod) are an MUTCD requirement for such "hybrid" signs - the rationale being so they can match the white sign lettering. In spite of this, personally, I think they should have stuck with amber for the current contract. Although one hopes MassDOT can make the white displays brighter, I suspect the result will be displays that are much harsher on the eyes at night than amber would have been.

When did that become a requirement because New York uses the amber for such signs. We've got a bunch of those in the NYC area giving the time to a particular bridge or airport via different routes.

I'm no expert on LEDs, but I would expect that these are able to be adjusted to a higher intensity without being glaring. As they are now, it's almost as if nobody looked at them from a few hundred yards away before installing them.

MassDOT plans to announce the winning bidder this Tuesday for the project that will provide 'Retroreflective Sign Replacements and Upgrades at Various Locations' in Division 5 (the South Shore and Cape Cod). The contract is part of a new MassDOT system that has had the agency identify each sign and then determine, based on its condition, whether it needs replacing. The contractor then only produces and installs those signs, instead of replacing all of them along given highway or district, hopefully saving time and money. (Roadman, as the project engineer can hopefully provide more details.) The project bid page:https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009785&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-17-1030-0H100-0H002-00000009785&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

The bid page has a link to the Sign Summary Sheet listing the signs to be replaced. Based on my perusal of the list for my local area, it appears the plan calls for replacing existing MA 228 signs at the Derby and Whiting street (MA 53) intersection in Hingham. Derby St. has not been the official route of MA 228 since the 1990's and the Mass. Guide (Paddle) signs at the intersections were revised a few years ago to indicate this by removing the 228 shields and replacing them with Derby Street:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/ma53228dst1.jpg)

The existing signs were not removed, however, and the plan indicates all the 53 and 228 signs will both be replaced (along with the South banner), including this one:(http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/ma53228dw3.jpg)

and the listing also says the existing support post will remain(?).

Meanwhile, there is no apparent plan to replace any of the MA 228 shields along Main Street, many of which date back to the late 1970s. While some are in good condition, there are several that are hard to see at night. Saving money is all and good, but if spent, it is helpful to chose the right things to spend it on. Perhaps the 228 shields meant for Derby Street can be repurposed for use elsewhere?

The project bob7374 mentioned is the second of an eventual five District-wide projects to be advertised by MassDOT for the replacement of various guide, route, regulatory, and warning signs that, based on both daytime and nighttime evaluations, have poor retoreflectivity. The District 4 contract is in the process of being awarded, and bids on the District 5 contract are being opened on Tuesday, December 20th. Design work on the remaining projects, one for Districts 1 and 2, one for District 3, and one for District 6, has recently started. These remaining projects are scheduled to be advertised in early to mid-summer of 2017.

Note that, for those sections of secondary state highway that fall under local jurisdiction, this project will only replace select guide, route marker, and speed limit signs - subject to local approval. This is why certain signs that may appear to be in poor condition are not currently included in the D5 contract documents.

I just noticed new BGS overheads for the advance of the new on-ramp to I-295 SB from I-95 SB (Exit 4) at the exit and 1/4 mile mark. The BGS at the exit is APL per MUTCD and there is also a separate new APL trailblazer for I-95 SB next to it. An early teaser for the eventual sign-replacement project on that stretch.

Yet, Exits 7A and Exit 1 on I-95 SB still remain without any signage indicating the exit and will likely stay that way until the replacement. (Exit 7A was an obvious gantry fail.)

The project bob7374 mentioned is the second of an eventual five District-wide projects to be advertised by MassDOT for the replacement of various guide, route, regulatory, and warning signs that, based on both daytime and nighttime evaluations, have poor retoreflectivity. The District 4 contract is in the process of being awarded, and bids on the District 5 contract are being opened on Tuesday, December 20th. Design work on the remaining projects, one for Districts 1 and 2, one for District 3, and one for District 6, has recently started. These remaining projects are scheduled to be advertised in early to mid-summer of 2017.

Note that, for those sections of secondary state highway that fall under local jurisdiction, this project will only replace select guide, route marker, and speed limit signs - subject to local approval. This is why certain signs that may appear to be in poor condition are not currently included in the D5 contract documents.

Federal HSIP funding is being used for all these contracts.

Thanks for the response. So have the signs on the proposed list, if they are on state highways under local control, been approved by the town or are they still to be submitted for approval? In other words, who should be contacted to make sure current erroneous signs are taken down but not replaced?

I just noticed new BGS overheads for the advance of the new on-ramp to I-295 SB from I-95 SB (Exit 4) at the exit and 1/4 mile mark. The BGS at the exit is APL per MUTCD and there is also a separate new APL trailblazer for I-95 SB next to it. An early teaser for the eventual sign-replacement project on that stretch.

Yet, Exits 7A and Exit 1 on I-95 SB still remain without any signage indicating the exit and will likely stay that way until the replacement. (Exit 7A was an obvious gantry fail.)

The new overhead BGSes at I-295 are NOT APLs, but standard lane assignment signs. These signs were installed as part of the I-295 interchange reconstruction, and reflect the new two lane exit ramp, and were put in as a stop-gap measure until the next sign update project - scheduled for 2018-2019.

The gantry and sign at Exit 7A will likely be replaced prior to the next sign update through the Accident Recovery program. Not sure about Exit 1.

The project bob7374 mentioned is the second of an eventual five District-wide projects to be advertised by MassDOT for the replacement of various guide, route, regulatory, and warning signs that, based on both daytime and nighttime evaluations, have poor retoreflectivity. The District 4 contract is in the process of being awarded, and bids on the District 5 contract are being opened on Tuesday, December 20th. Design work on the remaining projects, one for Districts 1 and 2, one for District 3, and one for District 6, has recently started. These remaining projects are scheduled to be advertised in early to mid-summer of 2017.

Note that, for those sections of secondary state highway that fall under local jurisdiction, this project will only replace select guide, route marker, and speed limit signs - subject to local approval. This is why certain signs that may appear to be in poor condition are not currently included in the D5 contract documents.

Federal HSIP funding is being used for all these contracts.

Thanks for the response. So have the signs on the proposed list, if they are on state highways under local control, been approved by the town or are they still to be submitted for approval? In other words, who should be contacted to make sure current erroneous signs are taken down but not replaced?

Signs on state highways under local control that are slated for replacement under the contract have already been approved by the local town. I would contact the local town, as well as cc'ing District 5, regarding any additional guide or route marker signs you believe should be replaced or changed.

With the start of the New Year, some questions about Massachusetts roads that I hope will be answered during 2017 (feel free to add your own, or answer them, if already known):1. Will MassDOT come to a decision regarding installation of milepost based exit numbers, or will they continue to 'study the issue'?2. Will the I-90 sign replacement projects (whichever numbers are used) be substantially completed?3. Given the progress in widening I-95/128 south of the new Kendrick Street exit in the Add-A-Lane work zone, will MassDOT open the fourth lane prior to the rest of the project being completed north to MA 9?4. On a related note, is there any plan to add mileposts to the sections of the Add-A-Lane project zone where work has been completed, or will this wait until the entire project is finished? (IMHO there's no reason mile markers on I-93 between I-95 and MA 24 could not be placed now).5. What are the major highway projects to be let during the next year?

I took a New Year's road trip to check out progress on MassDOT's I-95 Add-Lane project in Needham and Wellesley. Northbound traffic is now using part of a new bridge over MA 9 in Wellesley:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95addalane117l.jpg)

Other photos can be found in the Add-A-Lane section of my I-95 in Mass. photo page:http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)

Funny how I'm more interested with the transmitters in those pictures! I think one of them is the so-called "FM 128" tower in Needham. At least four TV stations are on that including WBZ-TV (CBS) channel 4 of Boston. I'm not on that section of I-95/MA 128 that often, however.

Funny how I'm more interested with the transmitters in those pictures! I think one of them is the so-called "FM 128" tower in Needham. At least four TV stations are on that including WBZ-TV (CBS) channel 4 of Boston. I'm not on that section of I-95/MA 128 that often, however.

The FM-128 tower in Needham (behind You-Do-It Electronics, on the east side of 128) has three TV stations on it: WFXZ (24), WMFP (62) and WBPX (68). WBZ-TV's (4) tower in Wellesley (the only one of those towers west of 128) is shared by WGBH (2), WCVB (5), WBTS (8), WSBK (38), WGBX (44), and WYDN (48).

MassDOT has announced it has completed the activation of all of its "Go Time" Real Time Traffic signs and more:http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-highlights-new-travel-time-technology-free-mobile-app/ (http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/uncategorized/massdot-highlights-new-travel-time-technology-free-mobile-app/)

Status of the bridge project on I-95 over the Merrimack River, between Newburyport and Amesbury: The old I-95 span is gone. It's now being replaced with what will be an identical span to the Whittier Bridge that opened sometime in the past 2 years.

UPDATE...three quick pictures while on I-95 South in Amesbury, MA, approaching the Whittier Bridge project. The old span of I-95 South here is gone, clearly being replaced with a new roadway and a matching bridge span. :clap:

With the start of the New Year, some questions about Massachusetts roads that I hope will be answered during 2017 (feel free to add your own, or answer them, if already known):

My addition:

6. Will MassDOT join the 35 other state DOTs that provide construction plans on the Web free of charge? (I know there is no charge for ordering plans on CD from MassDOT, but that means bothering someone at MassDOT to get a project CD in the mail, as opposed to running a script to download plans for every advertised project and then working with them locally.)

I have been working with MassDOT on both BidX and CommBuys over the past couple of weeks, and while there have been some small-signs replacement projects that appear to be proposal-only (e.g. 607495 with 47 signing sheets, 608398 with 18) as well as the 607422 travel time signs and 608024 exit renumbering contracts for which I believe separate threads already exist on this board (281 and 39 signing sheets respectively), nearly all contracts that involve replacement of large guide signs still seem to have an accompanying plans set that has to be ordered on CD. (Judging from the addendum plan sheets for 606619, there appears to have been a shift from simple summary sheets with undimensioned sign sketches to dimensioned sign drawings, prepared with SignCAD, that are still called summary sheets but are in effect sign panel detail sheets.)

I have also observed that while availability of bidding proposals on CommBuys (which is a BuySpeed platform all but identical to eMaryland Marketplace, which both MdTA and MdSHA use for distribution of proposals and construction plans, and also to Procure.az.gov, which Arizona DOT uses for small signing contracts) is essentially indefinite, they appear to be removed from BidX after about three months.

Judging from the addendum plan sheets for 606619, there appears to have been a shift from simple summary sheets with undimensioned sign sketches to dimensioned sign drawings, prepared with SignCAD, that are still called summary sheets but are in effect sign panel detail sheets.

"Pattern accurate" guide sign summary sheets, to use the common industry reference, are now MassDOT standard for all projects involving guide signs, even LGS (a.k.a. 'paddle sign') panels.

It's probably minor, but I noticed that the signs on the Masaachusetts Turnpike overpasses are getting changed out. there are several new street signs (sign blades) on the overpasses facing westbound traffic, especially in the Millbury/Auburn areas.

It's probably minor, but I noticed that the signs on the Masaachusetts Turnpike overpasses are getting changed out. there are several new street signs (sign blades) on the overpasses facing westbound traffic, especially in the Millbury/Auburn areas.

Perhaps they're part of the sign replacement contract on the pike. BTW, any progress on that as far as guide signs go?

The bridge ID sign blades used to only be on the 'pike and 128. The ones on the pike were white-on-brown, the ones on 128 I believe were black-on-white. Now they're everywhere, and are more standard white-on-green, still showing the road name and town. Those in CT just show the road name and are much smaller - some being moved from the bridge to the ground at the bridge.

It's probably minor, but I noticed that the signs on the Masaachusetts Turnpike overpasses are getting changed out. there are several new street signs (sign blades) on the overpasses facing westbound traffic, especially in the Millbury/Auburn areas.

Perhaps they're part of the sign replacement contract on the pike. BTW, any progress on that as far as guide signs go?

I traveled through the far eastern portion of the sign replacement project zone from Allston-Brighton to I-95/128. The only evidence of future sign replacement were a few orange tags put up by the contractor, Liddell Bros., to mark the location of future sign supports. I have no other information since I have not driven on the Pike west of I-95 since last fall.

MassDOT has released two documents asking for public comments. The first is the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) which the agency is holding a series of public meetings beginning this week. The document can be accessed at:http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/InformationCenter/CapitalInvestmentPlan.aspx)

The second is the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Federal Fiscal Years 2018-2022. That can be accessed at: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/StateTransportationImprovementProgram.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/StateTransportationImprovementProgram.aspx)

The page also has links to STIPs from previous years. The 2018-2011 document, like the previous documents since the 2015-2019 STIP, does not list any project to convert exit numbers to those based on highway mileposts. Though, interestingly, the CIP does list the project as 'ongoing.'

Going through the MassDOT website today and found that they finally updated the state map from 2012 to 2016. Perhaps waiting to see whether current or new exit numbers would have to be posted, current it is (they didn't bother even with changing the numbers on I-395 in CT), or maybe the current governor complained enough about why his predecessor was still on the official map. JPG and PDF versions can be found here: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx)

Going through the MassDOT website today and found that they finally updated the state map from 2012 to 2016. Perhaps waiting to see whether current or new exit numbers would have to be posted, current it is (they didn't bother even with changing the numbers on I-395 in CT), or maybe the current governor complained enough about why his predecessor was still on the official map. JPG and PDF versions can be found here: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TrafficTravelResources/OfficialTransportationMap.aspx)

Couple of other errors they made in CT: SR 819 extending over CT 179, and CT 4 on CT 361.

Paving is partially done on I-84 east in Sturbridge. Pretty much done until mile marker 5/Exit 2. Only the left lane is repaved from there to near the former Turnpike toll plaza. Crews were redoing the center of the road where the toll gantry was.

Also...the new southbound Merrimack River on I-95 in Newburyport/Amesbury is coming along nicely.

Been off for a bit but just noticed a bunch of snazzy new signs on the Mass Pike in the Worcester area. Nicely laid out, with much more mixed-case copy than before (such as overpass labels and rest area exit signs). Nice job, MassDOT.

One sign subtlety I noticed is westbound in Auburn, shortly after you've passed by exit 10 (I-290/I-395/MA 12): The distance sign was replaced and now has an I-84 shield, as opposed to "I-84" like the old one.

One sign subtlety I noticed is westbound in Auburn, shortly after you've passed by exit 10 (I-290/I-395/MA 12): The distance sign was replaced and now has an I-84 shield, as opposed to "I-84" like the old one.

I've posted examples of the distance signs and new auxiliary signs on the I-90 Signing thread:http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16222.150#lastPost (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16222.150#lastPost)

Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning. Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93. Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton. I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!

Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning. Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93. Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton. I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!

Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.

Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning. Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93. Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton. I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!

Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.

Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent? The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it. :)

Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning. Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93. Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton. I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!

Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.

Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent? The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it. :)

This is the only remaining official Route 128 sign left east of I-95, on the ramp to I-93 from Washington St in Braintree as seen in GSV in July 2015, and still there today (and, I guess, technically still correct too):https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2)

Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent? The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it. :)

This is the only remaining official Route 128 sign left east of I-95, on the ramp to I-93 from Washington St in Braintree as seen in GSV in July 2015, and still there today (and, I guess, technically still correct too):https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2)

Not the same; the difference being that there is no TO banner on that NORTH 128 trailblazer sign.

Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning. Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93. Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton. I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!

Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.

Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent? The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it. :)

This is the only remaining official Route 128 sign left east of I-95, on the ramp to I-93 from Washington St in Braintree as seen in GSV in July 2015, and still there today (and, I guess, technically still correct too):https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/H6vLy1yaJXA2)

I was sitting in traffic next to this sign yesterday; up close it is very battle-worn (dents and scars from things thrown at it by plows, I assume.)

Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning. Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93. Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton. I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!

Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.

Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent? The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it. :)

It's a large D6! And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.

I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.

I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.

Now wait a minute. Did he get on from the NY Thruway, or did he take I-84 through CT?

I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.

Now wait a minute. Did he get on from the NY Thruway, or did he take I-84 through CT?

Thruway, since he entered and left the state on I-90. (Double "and" not intentional.)

I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.

Now wait a minute. Did he get on from the NY Thruway, or did he take I-84 through CT?

Thruway, since he entered and left the state on I-90. (Double "and" not intentional.)

Why would the GPS go that way? Must have been particularly bad traffic on I-84 (or commute period).

I'm just back from a vacation here in the US. I met up with an old friend in Cincinnati. We went first to the Frank Lloyd Wright house Fallingwater, then to Pittsburgh and then to Boston. I have a question about my trip to Boston. My GPS routed me down the MassPike, or I-90, into the Boston metro toward my hotel in the Bunker Hill neighborhood. Along the way I saw signs saying that if I don't have a transponder I will be billed for the tolls. We drove all the way in and and out of the city and the state on I-90. The bill has not arrived as of today's mail (this was just last week). Does anyone have an idea what my total bill will be? I don't need a specific number, just a rough idea of what I should expect. Thanks in advance!

https://www.ezdrivema.com/TollCalculator

$10.50 or $11.50 each way, depending on where you got on and off in the city.

Now wait a minute. Did he get on from the NY Thruway, or did he take I-84 through CT?

Thruway, since he entered and left the state on I-90. (Double "and" not intentional.)

Why would the GPS go that way? Must have been particularly bad traffic on I-84 (or commute period).

There's also on ongoing construction project in Waterbury between Exits 23 (CT 69) and 25A (Austin Rd.). Whenever there's a construction-related lane closure; traffic can back up for miles in both directions.

Wase took me through Quincy's secondary roads this morning. Along the way, I noticed a new paddle sign at Adams St. and Furnace Brook Pkwy that stated "To 128" in the direction that FBP takes you to I-93. Why on Earth is this sign here? Why wouldn't the sign say "To I-93/US 1?" 128 *technically* starts in Canton. I get how some people (namely traffic reporters) still consider Exits 1-6 on I-93 "128," but NEW signage should not be referring to anything east of Canton as 128!

Most likely an 'in kind' replacement put up by either the City or a private developer.

Here's what the old sign (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Milton,+MA/@42.2536133,-71.0250727,3a,75y,311.15h,69.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dsh9CD3fgDGwz9FXot9tC_Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D225.57228%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e37dcc5d01064b:0x6b4bf10013fdfcb5!8m2!3d42.2495321!4d-71.0661653) looked like.

Since the above-GSV from 2014; Southshore720, was its replacement a large D6 paddle, the smaller D8 sign or equivalent? The older sign looked like a knock-off of a DPW-spec'd sign rather than the genuine article or even an MDC-spec'd sign; the vintage looks like it's from the mid-70s.

In theory, TO 128 is still technically correct; but one has to use I-93 (& IMHO, I-95) in order to get to it. :)

It's a large D6! And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.

Here's a photo of the sign I took this afternoon. Definitely looks up to MassDOT specs, even if it was put up by the city:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma128signquincy617.JPG)

The new ramp from the MassPike WB to I-95/Route 128 will open tonight. This ramp is now located west of the Park Road overpass, and will eliminate the really tight weave where the existing ramps merge and split, causing constant backups.

It's a large D6! And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.

Here's a photo of the sign I took this afternoon. Definitely looks up to MassDOT specs, even if it was put up by the city:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma128signquincy617.JPG)

My understanding is that earlier this morning (Friday 6/23), the DCR's sign contractor went out and changed the 128 shield on this sign to an I-93 one.

That's good news, though maybe not to 128 fans. I have some more bad news, however. The Division 5 Retroreflective Sign Replacement Project has made it to Hingham. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the plans included replacing several MA 228 shields that should have been taken down more than 15 years ago. I tried to contact the project engineer about the issue, but had no success. Today, new 228 shields have appeared at the Whiting Street (MA 53) and Derby Street intersection. These signs include new trailblazers and this reassurance marker:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma53228dw617.jpg)

The entire set of photos I took today can be found at:http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore)

Another error I spotted on Thursday was on 3A South at Route 228 were the new planned trailblazer is missing a right arrow, so it appears to be a reassurance marker on the wrong route. Perhaps the error was corrected today.

It's a large D6! And it looks like a newer D6 because there was a thin black border around the state shield.

Here's a photo of the sign I took this afternoon. Definitely looks up to MassDOT specs, even if it was put up by the city:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma128signquincy617.JPG)

My understanding is that earlier this morning (Friday 6/23), the DCR's sign contractor went out and changed the 128 shield on this sign to an I-93 one.

That's good news, though maybe not to 128 fans. I have some more bad news, however. The Division 5 Retroreflective Sign Replacement Project has made it to Hingham. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the plans included replacing several MA 228 shields that should have been taken down more than 15 years ago. I tried to contact the project engineer about the issue, but had no success. Today, 4 new 228 shields have appeared at the Whiting Street (MA 53) and Derby Street intersection. These signs include new trailblazers and this reassurance marker:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma53228dw617.jpg)

The entire set of photos I took today can be found at:http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/miscsigns.html#southshore)

Another error I spotted on Thursday was on 3A South at Route 228 were the new planned trailblazer is missing a right arrow, so it appears to be a reassurance marker on the wrong route. Perhaps the error was corrected today.

The sign in Quincy has been updated:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/toI93signquincy617.JPG)

As per the 228 signs, as suggested in a previous post, perhaps they could be re-used, either along East Street in Hingham, which has mostly 1980s vintage signs, or in Hull where there are not 228 signs of any kind northbound nor southbound at the beginning of the route at George Washington Blvd.

That's awesome that they changed the 128 to an I-93 shield at FBP & Adams! Bob, are they ever going to remove those new erroneous 228 trailblazers, or are we stuck with them for another 15+ years?

Hopefully, it won't take that long. I've also posted photos of the signs on some local FB groups and am thinking of forwarding them to the local paper. Perhaps the more noise MassDOT hears about it, the more likely they'll take action.

MassDOT as of last Saturday (6/24) has advertised for bids on the MA 24 Fall River to Randolph and MA 1A Boston to Revere sign replacement contracts. The winning bid is to be announced on 11/7 for 1A and 11/15 for 24. The project bid pages only have links to Notices to Contractors at this time.

By Revere, is the northernmost limit at Bell Circle? Most of the signs along the East Boston Expressway portion as well the East Boston section of MA 1A (McClellan Highway) were added/replaced during the Big Dig. D6/D8 LGS' at Bell Circle were recently replaced (circa 2016) as well.

One of two newest LGS' to still display the old-school NH-MAINE destination legend. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4095986,-71.0016547,3a,75y,299.07h,89.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSnlFgn2QWScSlVcVAjCyNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Additionally, there's no acknowledgement of the Ted Williams Tunnel either; obviously, these replacement LGS' were match-in-kind to their predecessors.

By Revere, is the northernmost limit at Bell Circle? Most of the signs along the East Boston Expressway portion as well the East Boston section of MA 1A (McClellan Highway) were added/replaced during the Big Dig. D6/D8 LGS' at Bell Circle were recently replaced (circa 2016) as well.

One of two newest LGS' to still display the old-school NH-MAINE destination legend. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4095986,-71.0016547,3a,75y,299.07h,89.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSnlFgn2QWScSlVcVAjCyNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Additionally, there's no acknowledgement of the Ted Williams Tunnel either; obviously, these replacement LGS' were match-in-kind to their predecessors.

Speaking of "NH-Maine", there's this BGS, while others replaced at the same time for the same exit 1 mile to the south say "Portsmouth NH"....

was the Route 3/4 interchange in Chelmsford ever a rotary? the way they have it set up now means you get stuck at at least 2 red lights before you can get thru to route 3 north from route 4 north.

Pretty sure it was a standard rotary. I did quite a bit of survey work for the US 3 reconstruction. That was a scary road to work on. We initially did work in the shoulder, with only a cop car for protection. One day we were working in the median when construction started and saw a bumper fly off a car that got hit and ended up in the median. They had stop signs on the onramps (which noone stopped at), and I think that's what caused the flying debris. Needless to say, I got the heck out of dodge.

Speaking of "NH-Maine", there's this BGS, while others replaced at the same time for the same exit 1 mile to the south say "Portsmouth NH"....

Despite the button-copy I-95 shield; I believe that BGS is older than its companion US 1 BGS. Note the use of the taller first letter of the NORTH direction cardinal on the US 1 BGS. That I-95 BGS was likely erected just prior to MassHighway using Portsmouth, NH en lieu of NH-Maine; very early 90s.

Another newer (2000s), but not new NH-MAINE LGS installation. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5283571,-70.9576541,3a,75y,200.68h,91.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7fdN3POLswsxqRyDmBNa2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at Forest St. in Peabody.

Pretty sure it was a standard rotary. I did quite a bit of survey work for the US 3 reconstruction. That was a scary road to work on. We initially did work in the shoulder, with only a cop car for protection. One day we were working in the median when construction started and saw a bumper fly off a car that got hit and ended up in the median. They had stop signs on the onramps (which noone stopped at), and I think that's what caused the flying debris. Needless to say, I got the heck out of dodge.

Yes, it was a standard Massachusetts highway interchange-type rotary. People still call it the Drum Hill Rotary despite the fact it hasn't been an actual rotary for 10+ years.

The new design has some flaws that aren't helped by its current sorry state of striping (try going from Drum Hill Road to Route 3 south and not have to make a last-minute lane change) but it is a big improvement over the old rotary in terms of safety and throughput, even if you have to wait at some lights.

Title: Re: Massachusetts
Post by: yakra on June 28, 2017, 11:31:41 AM

Standard, if a bit oblong, rotary:https://historicaerials.com/location/42.622370/-71.366061/2001/17

was the Route 3/4 interchange in Chelmsford ever a rotary? the way they have it set up now means you get stuck at at least 2 red lights before you can get thru to route 3 north from route 4 north.

Pretty sure it was a standard rotary. I did quite a bit of survey work for the US 3 reconstruction. That was a scary road to work on. We initially did work in the shoulder, with only a cop car for protection. One day we were working in the median when construction started and saw a bumper fly off a car that got hit and ended up in the median. They had stop signs on the onramps (which noone stopped at), and I think that's what caused the flying debris. Needless to say, I got the heck out of dodge.

Yes, prior to the US 3 widening, Drum Hill Rotary (to use the local name) was a standard uncontrolled Massachusetts rotary. IIRC, the principal reason it was squared off was to accommodate the installation of traffic signals while minimizing the need for ROW takings.

I think there had been some talk about it becoming MA-44A, but that never happened. It is un-numbered.

in 2005, as work on the upgraded US 44 was nearing completion, MassHighway's original plan was to renumber 'old' US 44 as MA 44A. However, the Town of Carver objected, so the proposal was dropped on the advice of the District, and the signs were changed to read Samoset Street instead. IIRC, the 44A re-numbering was noted in the route change information sent to AASHTO for re-routing US 44, which explains why some mapping services picked up on the change and consider it official.

They are called station markers and denote the highway baseline, not the ROW limits. Highway stationing is used for planning, survey, and maintenance purposes. Stations are denoted in 100 foot increments, but the markers are normally spaced every 500 feet. This is why they are in 5s.

They are called station markers and denote the highway baseline, not the ROW limits. Highway stationing is used for planning, survey, and maintenance purposes. Stations are denoted in 100 foot increments, but the markers are normally spaced every 500 feet. This is why they are in 5s.

And they're something being newly installed? I'd never noticed them before (this was on I-91). Or had they already been in use elsewhere?

They are called station markers and denote the highway baseline, not the ROW limits. Highway stationing is used for planning, survey, and maintenance purposes. Stations are denoted in 100 foot increments, but the markers are normally spaced every 500 feet. This is why they are in 5s.

And they're something being newly installed? I'd never noticed them before (this was on I-91). Or had they already been in use elsewhere?

Station markers have been in place for decades. In the past, replacement of the markers has always been done inconsistently - especially since the early 1990s when much maintenance work was privatized under the Weld/Kersasiotes administration. However, as part of the whole "state off good repair" program, MassDOT has been paying more attention to "minor" issues like these, especially given FHWA's increasing focus on asset management. And no, it's not because of the markers themselves, but because the markers provide useful reference to other assets.

They are called station markers and denote the highway baseline, not the ROW limits. Highway stationing is used for planning, survey, and maintenance purposes. Stations are denoted in 100 foot increments, but the markers are normally spaced every 500 feet. This is why they are in 5s.

And they're something being newly installed? I'd never noticed them before (this was on I-91). Or had they already been in use elsewhere?[/quote]

Station markers have been in place for decades. In the past, replacement of the markers has always been done inconsistently - especially since the early 1990s when much maintenance work was privatized under the Weld/Kersasiotes administration. However, as part of the whole "state off good repair" program, MassDOT has been paying more attention to "minor" issues like these, especially given FHWA's increasing focus on asset management. And no, it's not because of the markers themselves, but because the markers provide useful reference to other assets.[/quote]

Did the late-nineties/early-noughties metrication initiative (which has now collapsed) have an effect on maintenance of station markers?

I've added photos I took last weekend of construction along the I-95/128 Add-A-Lane Project work zone to my I-95 in MA Photo Gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)

More road sign fun via the contractors working on the Division 5 Retroreflective Sign Update project. A few years ago I posted this photo under the Department of Redundancy Department thread showing a pair of Jct MA 53 signs in Norwell along MA 228 North caused by the old one not being removed when replaced by a larger version of the sign around 2010:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma53dup1.jpg)

The Div. 5 sign replacement contractors finally got around to removing the old trailblazer late last month, but, unfortunately, replaced it with a new one, again leaving the relatively new larger version intact:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma5353qac717.jpg)

This leaves the square mile around this sign as not the best place to show off the cost-effectiveness of the MassDOT contract. You have 5 new shields (four 228 and one 53) put up to replace ones that simply should have been taken down. Meanwhile, a few miles north on MA 228 in Hingham you have assemblies like this that should be replaced but are not going to be under the current contract listing:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/ma228sign617o3.JPG)

Today on the WBUR traffic report, a backup on a section of highway in Randolph was referred to as I-93 South. The traffic report on WBZ gave the location of the backup as Rt 128 North. It seems to me that the changeover to retire Rt 128 as a name on that section of roadway is progressing as I am hearing it called I-93 more and more over the past couple of years. I also have noticed most if not all signage referencing Rt 128 where it is co-current with I-95 (apart from the small shields) has come down.

With all the new signing contracts as of late, I'm surprised the non-reflective button copy signs are still up on MA-33 in Chicopee and US-6/MA-18 in Fair Haven at last check.

Route 33 is a unique situation. Too few signs/structures to justify a separate replacement contract, but too many signs/structures to enable replacement through the traditional District-wide sign maintenance contract. There is a project (MassDOT Project 607736) currently at the preliminary design stage to do signal and intersection improvements on Route 33 from Fuller Road to Abbey Street - I'll check to see if signing work is included. The project is presently scheduled to be advertised for bids in August of 2019.

The button copy signs on Route 33 are so old they still refer to Westover as Westover AFB, when it's been Westover ARB for over twenty five years. Other signs in the area have the new(er) nomenclature.

The last center-tab sign (Basketball hall of fame sign on I-291W to 91 S ramp) in the region is probably kaput with the viaduct reconstruction, as it was attached to the side of the viaduct.

RE: The I-95/295 interchange improvements in Attleboro, particularly because I couldn't find much information on Google:

I see they've replaced (or are nearly done replacing; the Google imagery shows it under construction) the SB-SB ramp with a smoother one. Is this new ramp two lanes? Also, are they planning on replacing the NB-NB ramp, perhaps like a flyover or trumpet style ramp following the NB 95-SB 295 loop?

RE: The I-95/295 interchange improvements in Attleboro, particularly because I couldn't find much information on Google:

I see they've replaced (or are nearly done replacing; the Google imagery shows it under construction) the SB-SB ramp with a smoother one. Is this new ramp two lanes? Also, are they planning on replacing the NB-NB ramp, perhaps like a flyover or trumpet style ramp following the NB 95-SB 295 loop?

The ramp is complete and is 2-lanes. If I recall correctly, a flyover ramp for I-295 North to I-95 North was looked at as part of the project, but ended up being cut due to cost considerations.

Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington. At least the weave would be gone that way.

Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington. At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.

Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington. At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.

Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington. At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.

No, you'd go the other way...

What other way?

http://i.imgur.com/vmFMZU9.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/vmFMZU9.jpg)

How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road? Or part of an industrial park if you want to go the 290W-495N style? The geometry would be very difficult, to say the least. The former 95N to 295N ramp that would have been there has been encroached by development if you compare modern maps to historical maps.

It would be much tighter geometry than what's on 128N to 95S, or 128N to US 3N, and it probably wouldn't net them any accident reductions for rollovers despite the elimination of the weave. Keep in mind that the entire point of the 95S to 295S project was to eliminate the very kind of twisty ramp that would be required to go from 95N to 295S in a trumpet connection, because that old ramp was a rollover magnet. If you're going to have to spend the money, you aught as well spend it to do it properly (a flyover or a large enough modern ramp) versus something that won't have a gain.

As much as the current weave is annoying, it does slow people down enough that they don't take the current ramp too fast.

Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington. At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.

No, you'd go the other way...

How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this (https://i.imgur.com/UZZjSSp.png) or this (https://i.imgur.com/wB5Knhb.png) when the real solution is this (https://i.imgur.com/L2ljziH.png).

Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington. At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.

No, you'd go the other way...

How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this (https://i.imgur.com/UZZjSSp.png) or this (https://i.imgur.com/wB5Knhb.png) when the real solution is this (https://i.imgur.com/L2ljziH.png).

I see, we're thinking of two different problems and talking past each other.

I'm not sure if they'd be able to build that quite that way, though, as that would be even tighter than 290W to 495N which is, itself, very prone to rollovers.

There's also the power wires in that same area that may need rerouting, which could complicate such a thing as well.

I'e posted new photos from driving through the I-95/MA 128 Add-A-Lane work zone this past weekend. Progress can be seen in the use of the new fourth left travel lane northbound, as seen in this photo at Highland Avenue northbound:(http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95addalane817h.jpg)

and a new traffic configuration at MA 9 and ramp to Highland Avenue southbound. The rest of the photos at the I-95 in MA photo gallery: http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane (http://www.malmeroads.net/mass21c/i95photos.html#addalane)

Even without a flyover, the incomplete cloverleaf could at least be converted to a trumpet for 295 north to 95 north as they did with both the I-95 interchange in Canton and Route 3 in Burlington. At least the weave would be gone that way.

This would be very difficult to do without land takings. Look at the area on an aerial view to see just how close Deanville road is for 95N to 295S, let alone 295N to 95N. At that point you would go all the way for a flyover.

No, you'd go the other way...

How are you going to do a 95N to 295S trumpet ramp there with modern geometry without bulldozing some houses at the end of Deanville Road?

You wouldn't... You'd do a 295N to 95N trumpet ramp. Still not perfect modern geometry, but far better than what you'd need to do the way you're thinking. Plus, that's the higher-volume ramp.

You're thinking of this (https://i.imgur.com/UZZjSSp.png) or this (https://i.imgur.com/wB5Knhb.png) when the real solution is this (https://i.imgur.com/L2ljziH.png).

I see, we're thinking of two different problems and talking past each other.

I'm not sure if they'd be able to build that quite that way, though, as that would be even tighter than 290W to 495N which is, itself, very prone to rollovers.

There's also the power wires in that same area that may need rerouting, which could complicate such a thing as well.

Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect solution. Ideally a flyover like this (https://i.imgur.com/mCA3bzc.png) could be built, but that was cut for cost reasons as stated above. But is the existing loop and weave really less dangerous than the tight, direct ramp?

Yeah, it's definitely not a perfect solution. Ideally a flyover like this (https://i.imgur.com/mCA3bzc.png) could be built, but that was cut for cost reasons as stated above. But is the existing loop and weave really less dangerous than the tight, direct ramp?

It depends. All things equal eliminating a weave is a good thing in my book. But there might be other factors at play as to why that particular move hasn't been made yet.

Has anyone ever considered tunneling I-91 under Mount Thom in East Hampton? You could shave off a couple miles doing so. Plus the highway kinda winds around the mountain and traffic sometimes bottlenecks near trucks trying to pull the steep grade northbound.

I suspect a tunnel under Mount Tom was rejected out of hand, if it was even considered at all, because it would have to run at the base for any real savings in terms of grades climbed and the ridge looks wide enough to make for a tunnel of about a mile and a half. (The Eisenhower/Johnson tunnel complex, the longest on the Interstate system, is 1.693 mi long westbound and 1.697 mi long eastbound.) If truck percentages are high enough that trucks climbing the grades skirting the hill are causing significant delay to other traffic, then climbing lanes are probably justified.

I've traveled I-91 in Massachusetts too many times to count over the years, back and forth between CT and VT, at all hours of the day and night. I don't think a 3rd lane is needed all the way up to MA 2 in Greenfield just yet. Only times I've been stuck in traffic on that stretch was when they were replacing the bridges in Greenfield at Exit 26 and had it down to one lane. Other than the usual Sunday afternoon/evening backup during the winter southbound, it's relatively easy going for most of the way. What I can see is a third lane being added up to Exit 19/Northampton. A considerable amount of traffic enters/leaves the interstate at that exit heading towards MA 9, UMass, etc. The median is really wide and variable through the entire area north of Holyoke so widening would be relatively easy. They've been working for [what seems like] 10 years on the bridges in Holyoke and Northampton so I've grown quite accustomed to lack of shoulders in that area. Just keep it that way and start bulldozing the median. You wouldn't need to touch the interchanges at all... except Exit 19.

And through the Mt Tom curves, I've never encountered any big issue. The grades aren't steep at all. Any delay is mostly right around Exit 16-17 where it drops from 3 to 2 lanes and there are some closely-spaced exits and merges.

The biggest fix had to be adding a lane at the south end of I-91 at the I-95 interchange. Oh, the horrors of all I-91 traffic having to squeeze into one lane to get on I-95 South. Had to be the biggest bottleneck known to mankind. That being said, I-91 in CT and MA should be 10 lanes from I-95 to Exit 10, 8 lanes to Exit 13, 6 lanes from Exit 13-Exit 22 (+1 climbing lane northbound north of Exit 18 and southbound south of Exit 20), 8 lanes from Exit 22-25, 8 lanes from Exit 25 to the Forest Park curve with an HOV lane from Exit 25-40, 10 lanes to I-391, 8 lanes to Exit 17, and 6 lanes (with a climbing lane southbound south of Exit 18) the rest of the way to the VT border.

The overhead mounted VMSes on US 3 north of Burlington have all disappeared, one by one in the past few weeks. Are we scheduled to be getting new systems?

Yes. There is a contract underway to replace several of the older CMS signs in District 4 and District 6, most of which are the flip disc/fiber optic panels - including a number of early 1990s vintage Silvia signs - in the I-95/I-93 (MA 128 for you stick in the muds) corridor - with new LED panels. The intent is to retain the existing support structures, which will be accomplished by ditching the walk-in cabinets for slimmer and lighter boards like those recently installed on I-93 and I-95 north of Boston.

Am I the only one that thinks these are not good examples of roundabouts? Their primary example here is the mess where 129 meets 128 in Wakefield. I find that intersection to now be poorly signed, confusing, and poorly functioning because no one can figure out what to do in the time that they have to figure out to do it.

Am I the only one that thinks these are not good examples of roundabouts? Their primary example here is the mess where 129 meets 128 in Wakefield. I find that intersection to now be poorly signed, confusing, and poorly functioning because no one can figure out what to do in the time that they have to figure out to do it.

Two other rotaries in the Bay State that I'm aware of were also restriped to a roundabout (based on the article) fashion: Goodwin's Circle (MA 129/Salem St./connector to I-95/MA 128 & US 1) in S. Lynnfield, and MA 1A at the Wonderland Blue Line T station in Revere.

It's interesting that the Globe did not comment at all about the newly-constructed roundabouts at the Brimbal Ave./Sohier Road interchange w/128 (Exit 19) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beverly,+MA/@42.5745111,-70.8804032,18.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3166bea667b97:0xc7b7a37ab06fa14e!8m2!3d42.5584283!4d-70.880049) in Beverly. Such are true roundabouts IMHO.

With regards to the Wakefield example; maybe MassDOT should take note of how roundabouts are signed in Ohio (I saw some examples during the recent Columbus Road Meet) and erect more advance (& overhead) diagrammatic signage along 129 prior to one entering the interchange/roundabout.

MassDOT has posted sign drawings and location plans for the upcoming Division 2 Retroflective Sign Replacement project. The 4 sign drawing files include plans for the new type of paddle/guide signs with mixed case lettering (and they seem to have all the shields on signs related to US 202 correct). The files can be accessed here:https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19388&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19388&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

MassDOT has posted sign drawings and location plans for the upcoming Division 2 Retroflective Sign Replacement project. The 4 sign drawing files include plans for the new type of paddle/guide signs with mixed case lettering (and they seem to have all the shields on signs related to US 202 correct). The files can be accessed here:https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19388&external=true&parentUrl=bid (https://www.commbuys.com/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=BD-18-1030-0H100-0H002-19388&external=true&parentUrl=bid)

Page 3, sheet 14 shows a listing of route shields. Being a North Shore native (such was MassDPW District 5, not sure what MassDOT district it is now); the listing of the MA 114 shield literally jumped out at me. Am I missing something? MA 114 is nowhere near western MA.

The "Sign Action Plan" shows where the signs will be posted. 21A is on Main Street in Hardwick. In other words, it's a typo for 32A (or 32?). 114 isn't even in the drawings, so it was probably an error by whoever compiled the drawings.

The "Sign Action Plan" shows where the signs will be posted. 21A is on Main Street in Hardwick. In other words, it's a typo for 32A (or 32?). 114 isn't even in the drawings, so it was probably an error by whoever compiled the drawings.

Based on my experience with the District 5 project, unless someone makes an effort to let the district engineer know about the errors, they probably will end up being signed, as was the case with the unneeded Route 228 sign replacements in Hingham.

It probably bends off the main road so that it can pass through the center of Charlton, rather than staying on the periphery of the central business district (which, btw, seems now to be dominated by Treehouse). It's kind of like what happens with CT 10 in the map below by bending off path to go to the village of Plantsville, only to return to the same route (occupied by Old Turnpike Rd, about 3 miles later.